The steps prior to Laura Borràs going to trial for corruption have become a crossroads of reproaches between the new investigating judge of the case and the defense of the president of the Parliament. After magistrate Carlos Ramos rejected her challenge raised by Borràs, the leader of Junts has accused the judge of doing so without following the legally established procedure by having “undue haste” to close her case and send her to trial.
The Prosecutor’s Office asks Laura Borràs for six years in prison for splitting contracts to benefit a friend
Last Monday, Judge Ramos -appointed instructor of the case to replace Jordi Seguí, who has completed the commission of services for which he was assigned to the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC)- flatly rejected his recusal requested by Borràs, whom he accused of trying to “dilate” the case and “delay” the opening of the oral trial by raising it.
The defense of Borràs, which is exercised by the lawyer Gonzalo Boye, has appealed before the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJC Ramos’ refusal to even process his challenge. In the opinion of the defense, Judge Ramos did not respect “the procedural course” provided for in the law by resolving his recusal himself, without first notifying the Prosecutor’s Office and the rest of the defenses of the case.
The resolution of this Borràs appeal is the last step (although it should not necessarily be resolved before) to dictate the order to open an oral trial, which will transfer the debate on its continuity to Parliament. The Chamber must decide whether to apply to the president the article of the chamber’s regulations that requires the suspension of deputies who are going to be tried for corruption.
The instructor rejected the challenge that Borràs’s defense presented against him, alleging that he was appointed in 2004 from a short list proposed by the Parliament to the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), in which the PSC would have had “decisive intervention” , a group that has repeatedly requested the resignation of the leader of JxCat.
It should also be noted that Judge Ramos wrote in his order that the refusal to challenge him could not be appealed, but the defense understands that since the rules for processing it have been violated, they can argue before the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJC.
In the opinion of the defense, the way in which Judge Ramos processed his recusal “reflects, among other reasons, an undue haste that fits perfectly,” insists the defense, with the lack of impartiality on which the request for recusal was based.
Lawyer Boye maintains that the instructor “totally and absolutely disregarded the procedural rules applicable” to the way of processing a challenge, which in his opinion “reflects the special interest that Judge Ramos would have” in the case.