1703212468 The Court of Auditors rejected Puigdemont39s statement via videoconference because

The Court of Auditors rejected Puigdemont's statement via videoconference because it took him a year to request it

The Court of Auditors rejected Puigdemont39s statement via videoconference because

The Court of Auditors has issued a decision explaining why it rejected Puigdemont's videoconference testimony in the trial because of the costs of the trial. Puigdemont had only asked for such a statement on November 13 last year, a year after the case was admitted to his questioning and with only four days left for the oral hearing. A few days before Puigdemont's request, the PSOE and the Junts had sealed the pact to support the inauguration of Pedro Sánchez in return for, among other things, the promotion of an amnesty law for those accused of the illegal independence process in Catalonia. In parallel with the request to testify at the hearing via video conference if it were to take place, the Junts chairman raised the possible suspension of the trial, as he considered that the Court of Auditors should await the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR ) on the independence leaders' appeal against the Supreme Court ruling convicting them of sedition and embezzlement.

Last November, the Court of Auditors rejected the request to suspend the declaration, as it stated in an order that challenging the Supreme Court's ruling before the Strasbourg court did not have to lead to a paralysis of the procedure due to alleged accounting responsibility body. Spanish inspector. Puigdemont's defense – led by lawyer Gonzalo Boye – appealed the decision of the consultant in charge of the case, Elena Hernáez, who has now rejected this challenge with a ruling declaring that Puigdemont had approved the non-personal statement – upon request the defenses of other persons under investigation – since December 16, 2022 and requested this only on November 13, on the eve of the oral hearing that took place before the Court of Auditors on the 17th of the same month.

The request for an opinion via videoconference was received by the court four days after the PSOE and Junts agreed in Geneva to push forward the amnesty law for the litigants. The pact envisaged extending the effect of this law not only to the criminal sentences imposed by the judges and courts of that jurisdiction, but also to administrative and accounting functions. The latter are being investigated by the Court of Auditors, which, after the trial last November, is still waiting to decide on the claims of the public prosecutor's office and Catalan civil society regarding the irregular use of funds to support the trial. The public prosecutor's office is demanding that the independence leaders be ordered to return to the state treasury the 3.4 million euros spent for this purpose, while Catalan civil society estimates the diverted funds at 5.3 million euros.

In parallel, the defense of Oriol Junqueras has asked to paralyze this accounting procedure in view of the impending adoption of the proposed amnesty law currently being considered in the House of Representatives. The court has asked the parties for a report on this request and the prosecutor's office has already sent a report asking the Court of Auditors not to close the proceedings, which are focused on the preparation of the verdict after the trial last November. because the above-mentioned bill is still in the parliamentary processing phase. The prosecutor's text states that the content and entry into force of the amnesty law is “a future and relatively uncertain fact.”

The timing of publication of the judgment now depends on how quickly the parties submit their conclusions on this settlement procedure to the court. Usually these conclusions are presented in court, but lawyer Hernáez offered defenses and allegations to submit them in writing and this was agreed and confirmed on November 17 at the end of the hearing before the Court of Auditors. Regulatory sources believe the sentence is likely to be imposed even if the lawsuit is filed later, as successive stages of parliamentary debate on the bill will allow time for the resolution to be drafted, particularly after the reform of Senate regulations. , promoted by the PP, not to apply the emergency procedure to the text and thus delay its approval.

What influences the most is what happens next. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.

Subscribe to