Carles Puigdemont insists that the Constitutional Court (TC) provisionally suspend the detention and arrest order that Supreme Court magistrate (TS) Pablo Llarena maintains in force against him. The former president of the Generalitat has sent his arguments in favor of the application of the precautionary measure to the court of guarantees just a few days after the TC admitted his appeal for protection to be processed with the vote against five magistrates.
As LA RAZÓN has learned, the leader of Junts reiterates to the Constitutional Court that keeping this prison order in force causes him irreparable damage by not allowing him to exercise his functions as a parliamentarian (he is a deputy of the Parliament). Something that according to his defense, carried out by the lawyer Gonzalo Boye, violates the fundamental right of political participation enshrined in article 23 of the Magna Carta.
Furthermore, Puigdemont uses the precedent of Arnaldo Otegi in the “Bateragune case” to support his claim that what he considers irreparable harm should not continue to be caused. And after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) annulled the conviction of the leader of EH Bildu for trying to rebuild Batasuna, the Supreme Court ordered a repeat of the trial, due to the court’s lack of impartiality, and Otegi went to the Constitutional Court for protection, which he also requested to provisionally suspend the Supreme Court’s decision. The Abertzale leader argued, like Puigdemont now, that not suspending the order to repeat the trial would cause him irreparable harm in the event that the TC finally (as happened) granted him protection and that order to repeat the trial of the “Bateragune case” remained a dead letter). He would thus be sentenced to a “bench sentence,” he complained, and the resulting “rest and suffering,” especially—he emphasized—”when the sentences have already been served.”
In November 2021, the Constitutional Court suspended the trial of Otegi (who had already served the six years in prison to which he was sentenced for trying to rebuild the outlawed Batasuna) as a precautionary measure.
The exercise of the position of deputy
Puigdemont’s defense sees this decision as a precedent that, in their opinion, prevents us from now turning our backs on the former president. Its reasoning is clear: if the TC then appreciated that not suspending the Supreme Court’s decision to repeat the trial would entail harm to Otegi by forcing him to sit on the bench again, it should all the more reason now recognize that not annulling the prison order against him means perpetuating the injury to his right to hold office as a member of Parliament. And more so taking into account, he points out, that the Constitutional Court itself has declared unconstitutional the delegated vote that Puigdemont demanded in order to be able to carry out his work as a Catalan parliamentarian.
But, in addition, Puigdemont understands that the TC’s refusal to grant the precautionary suspension that he claims would imply the dismissal of his appeal for protection, which he has presented to try to overturn the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant amnesty for the crime of embezzlement for which he is being prosecuted.
In this regard, he invokes jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) which points out – his lawyer maintains – that in the event that a violation of rights is observed, it is obligatory to grant the requested precautionary suspension.
Last July, the leader of Junts urged the TC to suspend the prison order that Llarena agreed against him, which prevents him from returning to Spain if he does not want to be arrested. His intention was for the magistrates to address the matter urgently (in a very precautionary manner). But the Constitutional Court finally chose to process his request without that urgency, through precautionary means.
The protection, in spring
Once a separate piece is opened to process this request for suspension, the TC will listen to the arguments of both parties: in addition to Puigdemont, the State Attorney’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office and Vox must speak out. With these wicks, the Plenary will make a decision, which is expected to take no more than a month and a half.
It will take more time for the TC to rule on his appeal for protection, a decision that is not expected before spring. If the court of guarantees finally grants him protection, the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant amnesty to Puigdemont would be without effect, in what would mean a new train wreck between both courts, the annulment of the convictions for ERE fraud still recent (now pending what the Court of Justice of the EU says).
Llarena refused to grant amnesty for the crime of embezzlement against Puigdemont, understanding that there was a profit motive in financing the “procés” with public funds, to the extent that he did not have to disburse that money from his pocket.