Wednesday, November 30

First judicial assault on Puigdemont’s immunity: the case of the letter from the European Parliament that denied him protection in 2019

On 10 October 2019 ERC MEP Diana Riba and 38 other MEPs wrote to the then President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli. They made a request to protect the immunity of Carles Puigdemont and Toni Comín, who were then elected MEPs but without a seat. Sassoli thought about it, and on December 10 he responded to them rejecting that request for protection. Four days after Riba sent the letter, the sentence of the process was published, and, as a consequence of it, the investigating judge of the Supreme Court Pablo Llarena issued an arrest warrant for Puigdemont and Comín.

In the hearing this Thursday, the defense, played by Gonzalo Boye, Paul Bekaert and Simon Bekaert, has defended that Sassoli’s refusal is the origin of many of the things that happened later. Why? Because they understand that if Sassoli had responded to the request and had processed the case, passing it on to the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs, he would have automatically blocked the possibility of Llarena issuing his Eurowarrant, as a result of which the arrests took place in Germany. , Belgium and even Italy.

In front, have been the legal representatives of the European Parliament, Niklas Görlitz, and the State Attorney, represented by Andrea Gavela. Both have demanded that the General Court of the European Union (TGUE) reject the appeal of Puigdemont and Comín against that letter from Sassoli of December 2019.

Thus, Görlitz has defended, in line with what was stated by the European Parliament in the previous documentation, that the letter from the former president of the European Parliament “did not have any legal effect” and could not have been “binding” for the Spanish Justice, Contrary to what Boye defended, whose thesis is that Llarena’s Euro-orders could have been avoided if the European Parliament had protected his immunity in the fall of 2019, reports Efe. Boye’s thesis is that if Sassoli had complied with the request, the Euro-orders could not have been issued until the resolution of the European Parliament – ​​in this case the JURI commission – on the immunity of Puigdemont and Comín.

On Friday, the petition

If this Thursday’s hearing was about Sassoli’s letter of December 10, 2019, Friday’s has to do with the request process that ended up being approved in plenary session of the European Parliament on March 9, 2021. In this case , Puigdemont’s defense will argue, among other issues, that the procedure was not impartial –as the CJEU’s precautionary measures in relation to the president of JURI, Adrián Vázquez, and the rapporteur, the Bulgarian ultra-rightist Angel Dzhambazki–; that there is a political persecution against the pro-independence leaders –in this case, Puigdemont, Comín and Clara Ponsatí–, to the point, the defense maintains, of undertaking a legislative reform of the crime of sedition with the aim of paving the way for Euro-orders.

Likewise, they will argue, in line with what was recognized by the Belgian Justice in the rejection of the Euro-order of the former Minister of Culture Lluís Puig, that the Supreme Court is not competent to claim the petition, because the case should have been handled by the Court of Justice of Catalonia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *