Friday, March 29

The Catalan TSJ sends Roger Torrent to trial for allowing the Parliament to disapprove the monarchy


The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has opened an oral trial against the Minister of Business and Labor and former President of the Parliament, Roger Torrent, and three former members of the Catalan Chamber of Commerce for allowing a debate on the monarchy in autumn 2019 and self-determination. In this way, the investigating magistrate, Maria Eugenia Alegret, sends Torrent, Josep Costa, Eugeni Campdepadrós and Adriana Delgado to trial.

The causes of Roger Torrent and the external expenses of the procés mark the beginning of the Catalan judicial course

Know more

The prosecution requests a year and eight months of disqualification and a 30,000-euro fine for the first three, and a year and four months and a 24,000-euro fine for Delgado, mayor of Sant Vicenç de Castellet (Bages), for serious disobedience to the Constitutional Court .

The TSJC order includes the evidence provided by the prosecution and Vox against the four defendants. In the first resolution that was debated in Parliament, on November 12, there was a commitment to the exercise of the right to self-determination, while the second was a proposal in response to the Supreme Court ruling on 1-O and reiterated the King’s disapproval. At that time, Torrent was president of Parliament, Costa was first vice president, Campdepadrós was first secretary of the Board, and Delgado was fourth.

The public ministry says in its indictment that the judgment of the TC of December 2, 2015 declared unconstitutional and null the resolution 1/XI of the Parliament of November 9, 2015 on the beginning of the political process in Catalonia as a consequence of the results of the previous elections to Parliament. The TC agreed to the suspension of parliamentary resolutions and reminded the Board of its duty to “prevent and paralyze any parliamentary initiative that would involve ignoring or evading the agreed suspension” and warned them that they could incur responsibilities, including criminal, if they failed to comply. . In its brief, the prosecution considered that the four defendants failed to comply with this sentence by allowing both debates.

In the case of the debate on self-determination, on October 28, 2019, the CUP-CC registered a motion expressing the will of the Parliament “to exercise in a concrete way the right of self-determination and to respect the will of the Catalan people” . On October 29, Mesa admitted it for processing, on November 5 the requests for reconsideration of the PPC, PSC and Cs were rejected, and on November 12 it was debated and approved in plenary. The prosecution recalls that on November 12, the TC had admitted an execution incident for non-compliance with the orders and that those affected were notified of their “duty” to prevent the initiative.

In the case of the second resolution, on the disapproval of the King, the prosecution recalls that on October 22 JxCat, ERC and CUP-CC registered the proposed resolution in response to the Supreme Court ruling that included a statement stating that “the Parliament reiterates and will reiterate the disapproval of the monarchy as many times as the deputies want. The Board admitted it for processing, on October 29 the requests for reconsideration were dismissed and on November 12 it was debated and approved in plenary.

The prosecution recalled that in the ruling of July 17, 2019, the TC had already declared unconstitutional and null some sections of a Parliament resolution in which the King’s actions in relation to the procés were already disapproved. In a subsequent resolution –July 25, 2019– the rejection of the King was reiterated, and on December 18 the TC declared these paragraphs null and void again.

In fact, the resolution of the Parliament in response to the sentence – the second that motivated the complaint – also included a defense of the right to self-determination, with the commitment that “the Parliament reiterates and will reiterate as many times as the deputies want (…) the defense of the right to self-determination and the vindication of the sovereignty of the people of Catalonia”.

In the order of the end of the investigation, the magistrate Maria Eugenia Alegret assures that the Parliament “is not a place immune to compliance with the law and the principle of normative hierarchy”. Thus, she admits that the Board should not verify the unconstitutionality of all parliamentary initiatives, but it can do so with those that are clearly unconstitutional, and even more so if the Constitutional Court orders it. For this reason, the magistrate considers that the four former members of the Bureau cannot rely on their parliamentary inviolability, which is more linked to freedom of expression than to the decision to allow two initiatives to be processed that are under warning from the TC.



www.eldiario.es