Going free for the umpteenth delivery attempt of Puigdemont (if immunity allows it)

The pulse between the Spanish Justice and Carles Puigdemont continues and is about to enter another new chapter. This week's decision by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court to endorse the prosecution of the Catalan ex-president for crimes of disobedience and embezzlement will give rise to the umpteenth attempt to hand over the fugitive upon request to the Belgian authorities. Until now, the instructor of the process, Pablo Llarena, has seen how his successive claims have been failing. Different European courts intersect on the current board. With sedition ruled out, the magistrate prepares to retry. Provided, yes, that the immunity of the MEPs allows it.

The order of the Supreme Court issued this week reopens the scenario by supporting Llarena's move to replace sedition with disobedience and to see aggravated embezzlement applicable, which entails high prison sentences. The new subtype introduced by the Government of Pedro Sánchez, aggravated public disorder, will not be applied. Sedition, the Chamber highlights, has been repealed, causing the “decriminalization” of certain acts, favoring the accused and encouraging impunity for the future.

Regarding the embezzlement, the magistrates also agree with Llarena and rule out an attenuation considering that the diverted money did not end up in the pocket of the former president. The step taken to allocate public assets to the financing of 1-O, “promoted and encouraged by the regional government bodies that they directed” is understood as a system to obtain a benefit, even if it was not economic and, furthermore, the destination given to the funds is illicit.

There is another key in the car that gives clues about the future of Puigdemont. The court supports another of Llarena's decisions, that of issuing a national arrest warrant against him. Regarding the immunity that the leader of Junts defends having due to his status as a member of the European Parliament, the TS argues that he cannot claim to have a “protective shield” that allows him to have the option of not appearing to be questioned about the facts allegedly criminal. Immunity, the scope of which is now in the hands of the General Court of the EU, which will rule on the matter next July, is not a “personal privilege” for the Supreme Court and has not been established “to generate areas immune to the rule of law “. Nor is it necessary, in his opinion, to process a new petition.

The delivery attempt depends, however, on the ruling of the General Court of the European Union scheduled for July 9. The court reviews the lawsuit that Puigdemont filed against the decision of the European Parliament to grant the instructor of the process the request that he requested to proceed against him and the rest of the fugitives and the initial decision of the European Parliament to provisionally withdraw their immunity. The final result will depend on whether you recover it completely and definitively..

The trick of political persecution

In the event that the General Court buys his arguments, Puigdemont will remain safe as long as he holds office and is even willing to challenge the theses of the Supreme Court and launch an ordeal at it. While Llarena considers that despite the immunity, his arrest in Spain can be ordered, the former president believes that he would violate the decisions of the European Justice if he did so. The return to national territory, and specifically to Catalonia —his first planned destination—, would thus put the Supreme Court in the position of “failing to comply” with the TUE resolutions, say the sources consulted.

Along with immunity, still pending specification, Puigdemont has the trump card of the alleged persecution for political reasons that was alluded to by the Court of Justice of the European Union.. Despite the fact that the Court partially aligned itself with Judge Pablo Llarena in his fight with the Belgian Justice, it included as an exception that a court may refuse to comply with the Eurowarrant if the person who must be handed over alleges that he would be exposed “to a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial, because in said Member State it would be prosecuted by a court lacking competence for that purpose”, although it must be demonstrated in some way. The ex-president's defense trusts that Belgium will never hand him over.