Two key events in the story of Juan Carlos and Corinna are outside British jurisdiction. The delivery of 65 million dollars of an alleged Saudi gift, which Juan Carlos I allegedly gave to his then lover on June 2, 2012, will not be reviewed. Nor will the British judges see one of the main stories with which Corinna builds her accusation of harassment against the king emeritus: the alleged intrusion, in May 2012, of CNI agents or a private agency in his office in Monaco, taking advantage of his absence.
Both facts are included in the period already established as immunity of Juan Carlos I: the one in which he reigned, that is, the time prior to the day of his abdication in Felipe VI, June 18, 2014.
In addition, in this Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Simler considers the CNI and its boss at the time, General Félix Sanz Roldán, “state actors”. In fact, any action by the CNI at that time that could be ordered by the king is considered non-judgmentable, since Simler believes that the monarch could never ask an intelligence agency or his boss for anything, “except as a sovereign or someone of that nature”. She also believes the judge “totally implausible” that individuals acting privately organized international surveillance, covert raids and infiltration of electronic devices.”
The sentence does not consider any other way of acting by General Sanz Roldán than “in a public or state capacity.” But the Harassment accusation made by Corinna Larsen against Juan Carlos I does not expire with today’s ruling. Only the contents of that accusation that were dated before June 2014 are left out, and there is more.
Already in the very introduction of the ruling, Judge Simler warns that an estimate of the appeal that Juan Carlos I had presented (and that has been estimated) does not imply the end of Corinna’s civil action. This Tuesday’s ruling “will not be fatal to the claim of the defendant, since she alleges acts of harassment after the abdication in which state immunity is not applicable,” says the text of the sentence.
The instruction, in any case, becomes rigorous with some of the arguments for which the ex-lover of the emeritus king asks for damages. The courts, it is recalled in the sentence, are still waiting for the presentation of medical evidence by Corinna on alleged psychological damage that he claims to have suffered. Medical reports issued at the time when these damages could have been suffered have not yet been presented, nor have they been requested to the court to present others, nor have the judges been able to evaluate a “reasonable diligence” in the provision of these tests.