Pablo Llarena, judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and trainer of the procedure, has rejected “as manifestly unfounded” the fifth challenge with which the fugitive Carles Puigdemont wants to remove him from the case, in this case because the judge gave in to his expressed Opinion on a possible amnesty during a conference at Burgos Law School in August. After recalling that these “defendants in absentia” have tried to challenge almost the entire criminal chamber and part of the Constitutional Court, Llarena estimates that the fugitive former president wants to remove him for expressing his opinion on the alleged amnesty law, “It does.” “It does not exist and cannot be put into practice,” and it is not up to you to decide whether or not it is feasible or constitutional. The judge assumes that the plaintiffs (Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí) simply want to delay the issuance of a European arrest warrant against them until the European elections in June 2024, which will give effect to the request to the European Parliament to annul the petition would block. their immunity and be able to stop them.
The judge flatly rejects the challenge and reminds us of the refugees’ sustainable challenge strategy. In this case, they announced Llarena for a conference in which, according to the supporters of the incident, the judge “made statements about the eventual adoption of an amnesty law, which they believed could try to prevent its application to the specific case. “which would call into question his neutrality to proceed with the instruction.”
More information
The judge explains that the conference was purely academic in nature and that nothing was assessed about the alleged amnesty law and that no position of the lecturer was presented. “The current reason for rejection is aimed at the immediate dismissal of the lecturer and speculates on my position in the face of a legal provision that does not exist and may never exist, so today’s review has no relevance to the case,” he emphasizes.
In his speech in Burgos, Llarena spoke about various aspects of a possible amnesty for the defendants in the trial. “If there is a constitutionally legitimate purpose that justifies us overriding certain essential principles like separation of powers and equality before the law, like a remote control, then let’s see,” he said. It must be examined, he added, whether the reason for adopting this measure “justifies” the restriction of constitutional principles.
The order states that if an amnesty law were ever enacted with substantive application criteria that don’t even exist today, “it will not be up to the instructor to decide the constitutionality of the norm, nor is it up to him at all.” to question its constitutional validity or raise the question of unconstitutionality.”
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
The judge emphasizes that the attempted challenge is flatly rejected as “manifestly unfounded” since he considers that the sole intention is “to procedurally foreseeably delay any action taken by this trainer aimed at the issuance of a possible European Arrest Warrant.” and to be able to conclude.” a case that only awaits the receipt of the investigative statement from the rebellious defendants.” In his opinion, he only wants to gain time by pursuing a chain of challenges against all the judges who decide on the above-mentioned challenge could.
This “persistent” stance, writes Llarena, is only aimed at reaching next year’s European elections. “Should the recusants succeed, using this or other procedural strategies, in reaching the June 2024 deadline without effectively availing themselves of judicial cooperation with other countries in which the escaped defendants have sought refuge, the one required in this will Reject the application. Trainers of the current European Parliament to which they belong.”
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits