Friday, September 22

A civil lawsuit that will undress the Spanish parliamentary monarchy

The grounds on which the English judge has decided to admit Corinna Larsen’s claim for harassment against Juan Carlos de Borbón, disavows the interpretation that had been made in Spain of the king’s inviolability. Of course since his abdication, but also before. And he has done it in a way that has the virtue that everyone can understand it. You don’t have to have studied at any Law School to understand what the English judge has left in writing. The harassment cannot have any relation to the functions that the king has constitutionally attributed and, consequently, cannot be covered by inviolability, nor could it be, says the judge, the theft of a diamond in a jewelry store.

Inviolability has always been linked to endorsement. In the Constitutional State there can be no act that cannot end up demanding responsibility from the protagonist of it. In order to prevent the king from being held responsible for the acts that are constitutionally attributed to him, the institution of the endorsement was introduced, a transfer mechanism of responsibility that assumes that the president of the Government or the minister who endorses them is responsible for the acts of the king. . The acts of the king without endorsement are null and void.

Acts that by their very nature are not likely to be endorsed, such as harassment or robbery of a jewelry store, cannot be protected by inviolability. They can be, consequently, resided before a Court of Justice. This is what the English justice has just decided regarding the conduct of Juan Carlos I in relation to Corinna Larsen.

Once this point is reached, the least important thing is the decision that can be adopted regarding the conduct of Juan Carlos de Borbón. It is the Spanish parliamentary monarchy that is going to be stripped bare throughout the process. Because Juan Carlos de Borbón did not exclusively participate in the harassment operation, but he participated directly, none other than the General who was in charge of the CNI.

Who decided that General Sanz Roldán would go to London to meet with Corinna Larsen? Was it a decision by Juan Carlos de Borbón without the President of the Government being aware of it? Was Juan Carlos able to make this decision even before his abdication? Let’s not say anything after his abdication.

Juan Carlos de Borbón has turned the operation to harass Corinna Larsen into a state operation, in which the head of the country’s intelligence service has participated. For the English justice, this may be one more element that provides credibility to the complaint of harassment by Corinna Larsen. He has no reason to pass judgment on the conduct of General Sanz Roldán. But if the English justice considers the participation of the Director of the CNI in the harassment operation as proven and considers it an element of proof of the veracity of the complaint, would the Spanish Public Prosecutor not have to draw any consequence from it and initiate an investigation? about the possible criminal nature of the CNI Director’s participation in the harassment operation?

It is the very nature of the Spanish monarchy as a parliamentary monarchy that is being questioned. Can State resources be mobilized for a harassment operation outside the territory of the State without the President of the Government having authorized it? Shouldn’t the Public Prosecutor ask General Sanz Roldán who gave him the order to go and meet Corina Larsen in a London hotel? Shouldn’t I ask Mariano Rajoy if he was aware of the CNI’s participation in the operation? If he had it and authorized it, wouldn’t he have incurred liability? If he didn’t have it, what kind of parliamentary monarchy is this?

Corinna Larsen’s civil lawsuit against Juan Carlos de Borbón is an indicator of the type of parliamentary monarchy that was constitutionalized in 1978. The parliamentary investigation is inexcusable.