Gonzalo Boye, Carles Puigdemont’s lawyer, has already moved his first tab after the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the state of affairs of the previous president and the remainder of the fugitive former ministers. In a letter to which NIUS has accessed, the lawyer asks Judge Llarena, teacher of the procés, to ship the case to Catalonia as a result of he considers that the European courtroom has questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for being the best courtroom in Spain, and never having cases to show to later.
Specifically, the letter refers back to the invocation made by the CJEU to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to affirm “a courtroom established by Law (…) can’t be thought-about a nationwide supreme courtroom that decides in first and final occasion on a felony matter with out having an specific authorized foundation that offers it jurisdiction to prosecute all of the defendants”.
Based on this, Gonzalo Boye factors out that, as he has been defending for greater than 5 years, the Supreme Court “can’t be thought-about a courtroom established by regulation and, due to this fact, can’t and shouldn’t proceed to listen to this continuing.”
The letter additionally sends Llarena the message that if he doesn’t transfer away, Belgium will inform him that it’s not competent and that finally, which might be, he says, “even worse.” it will likely be the Court of Human Rights that dictates it.
To end with this letter of Fundamental Rights, Puigdemont’s lawyer questions, as soon as once more, the impartiality of Judge Pablo Llarena: “A situation that the Examining Magistrate manifestly lacks, in addition to different magistrates of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court who they’re intervening, regardless of this,” says Boye.
completely different details
In its evaluate of one other decision of the CJEU, on its additionally defended Valtonyc, the letter additionally alleges it has turn into clear that “a supply by any State of the European Union is unfeasible, whether it is sought on the idea of guidelines that weren’t in drive on the time of the details”, in reference to the reform that repealed sedition and modified the crime of embezzlement. And to say it, he wields the next paragraph:
“If the regulation of the issuing Member State (…) weren’t relevant to the details that gave rise to the case by which that arrest warrant was issued, the executing judicial authority may discover it tough to determine the related model of that arrest warrant. Right when this had been modified between the date of the details and the date on which mentioned authority should rule on the execution of the European arrest warrant.
Remember that the European courtroom has already settled this matter within the case of Valtonyc, and that it was one of many causes of the denial of its supply.
To the Prosecutor’s Office: “The sentence would already be handed down”
Regarding the allegations made by the Prosecutor’s Office, asking that the previous crime of sedition be subsumed into one among aggravated public problems, primarily based on the sentence of the procés and the brand new norm, Gonzalo Boye accuses the Public Ministry of violating the presumption of innocence of his consumer, although he has by no means been tried.
“There can’t be, because the Public Prosecutor claims, a subsumption by reference to a sentence that was handed down in opposition to different folks aside from my consumer; the leap that’s made clearly violates the precise to the presumption of innocence of those that don’t has nonetheless been tried”, writes the ex-president’s protection, whereas recalling that the sentence that sentenced Junqueras and the remainder of the 1-O leaders is being challenged earlier than the Strasbourg Court.
What the lawyer does agree with Judge Llarena is that, in any case, Puigdemont can’t be accused of aggravated public problems as a result of the details don’t match and he has not appeared linked to these particular problems that will have been dedicated in in the course of the holding of the referendum on October 1, 2017″.
But so far as the coincidence, Boye makes it clear that he doesn’t agree with the accusation of disobedience or embezzlement, the crimes for which Pablo Llarena has now prosecuted him.
Regarding the aggravated embezzlement that each Llarena, the State Prosecutor’s Office and the Lawyers accuse, Boye flatly denies the existence of a revenue motive that they’ve interpreted as using public cash for one thing unlawful: “This social gathering sustains the non-existence within the case that considerations us and, moreover, that there has not been any unlawful motion both”, he concludes.
The competence of the Supreme, in line with the Supreme
The grievance that the Supreme Court couldn’t assume all the case and that not less than part of the defendants -those not registered- ought to have been tried in Catalonia, was always uncovered by the defenses. In the sentence, the High Court responded to this by defending its competence because of the interconnectedness of the details, each when addressing the crimes of rise up/sedition that had been seen within the trial, in addition to in embezzlement: “The settlement of the Governing Council of September 2017, by which the Councilors collectively assumed duty for the bills required by the referendum on October 1, concerned registered and non-regulated members in a authorized unit that suggested a unitary examination “.
The courtroom’s arguments unfolded over seven pages by which references are additionally made to the European Union’s constitution of elementary rights on which Boye depends to request that the case be despatched to Catalonia.