The Public Prosecutor’s Office of the National Court has appealed against the decision of Judge Manuel García-Castellón, referee in the Tsunami Democràtic case, to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case and investigate the former President of the Generalitat and current MEP. Carles Puigdemont, for terrorism. ; to the Secretary General of the ERC, Marta Rovira, and 10 others. The Ministry of State considers that the head of the Central Court No. 6 has suffered a “flagrant contradiction” because 15 days ago he considered that it was not appropriate to submit a reasoned opinion to the Supreme Court for it to take over the decision could be a case because the investigation had not yet been completed. . For this reason, the public prosecutor reiterates that the judge made the decision “without any basis, without new proven facts” and without “new evidence of criminal liability on the part of the defendant” (Puigdemont and the Catalan parliamentarian Ruben Wagensberg). And he also believes that García-Castellón has changed the resolution he had already signed, thereby violating a provision of the Judiciary Code.
The prosecutor’s appeal was made public this Wednesday, a day after García-Castellón addressed the Supreme Court and also sent a legal assistance commission to the Swiss authorities – a mutual legal assistance procedure between states – so that the Swiss police can locate the Secretary General of the ERC, Marta could Rovira, who had fled to this country since March 2018, as a preliminary step to requesting her arrest and transfer to Spain.
More information
The prosecution’s brief focuses on the contradiction that, in its opinion, García-Castellón is suffering from the fact that he is now submitting a reasoned opinion to the Supreme Court and did not do so on the 6th, when he initially named Puigdemont as a defendant, although he had his knew the assessed condition. The appeal contains the words that the supervisor of the tsunami case wrote at the time: “This judge understands that it is not appropriate at this time to give a reasoned opinion, but that it will be necessary to examine his involvement in the events in more detail To specify (…) If the investigation is not completed, it is not appropriate to agree on a reasoned opinion.”
The prosecutor Miguel Ángel Carballo reiterates that, by doing the opposite of what he then wrote two weeks later, the judge is changing his own decision ex officio and that he is doing so “without any basis, without new proven facts and without that measures have been taken “do taken.” Care that has collected new evidence of criminal liability in relation to the defendants Rubén Wagensberg Ramón and Carles Puigdemont Casamajó.”
Carballo emphasizes that this change was made “in violation of Article 267.1 of the Organic Law of Justice,” which states: “The courts will not be able to modify the decisions they promulgate once they have been signed, but they will be able to provide clarity .” any unclear concept and correct any mistake. Material from which they suffer.” The prosecution claims that “this is not the case.”
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
Thousands of people gather in front of Prat airport in October 2016, triggered by the Democrats’ tsunami. Quique Garcia (EFE)
García-Castellón’s November 6 verdict triggered a rapid appeal by the prosecutor to the Criminal Chamber of the National Court. The ministry claimed that there were no signs of terrorism in the case, but rather a crime of serious public disorder, and saw no reason to charge Puigdemont. However, the judge did not wait for the national court to rule on this appeal and before the instance ruled on the Junts leader’s involvement, he turned to the Supreme Court to consider whether to take over the case.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_