The judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court Pablo Llarena has flatly rejected the challenge formulated against him, as instructor of the process of the process, by the defendants in it, the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and the former councilors Antonio Comín and Clara Ponsatí , considering that it is based on a “manifestly unfounded” cause, and that it understands that it could have been used to delay a possible European arrest warrant.

In an order, the judge begins by recalling that this is the fifth time that those accused in absentia in the case have promoted an incident of recusal aimed at separating him from the investigation, which has not excluded the fact that recusals have also been filed against practically all of the magistrates of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court that has heard about your matter in one way or another, and an important part of the members of the Constitutional Court.

This fifth challenge is based on the content of a conference given by the judge at the Faculty of Law of Burgos, where, according to Puigdemont and the other two promoters of the incident, Llarena made statements about the eventual approval of an Amnesty Law that would anticipate that may try to prevent its application to the specific case, which would question its neutrality to continue with the instruction.

The magistrate explains that the conference referred to by the defendants took place in a strictly academic space and responded to the analysis of the basic technical criteria for supervising the constitutionality of any legal norm, but without evaluating any specific aspect of a possible Amnesty Law.. That is to say, the procedural position of the instructor was not advanced in any of the passages that the recusants themselves culled, but rather a general and open academic approach was made that was highlighted by the media.

“Look for the instructor's apartment”

In any case, the judge adds, regardless of the content of the conference, its impartiality cannot be considered compromised when the recusants demand their immediate separation from the investigation, and it is impossible for their conference to reflect today any conditions for the processing of the case. , since no Amnesty Law has been promulgated that today can be applied to the case being prosecuted. “The current cause of recusal seeks the immediate removal of the instructor by speculating on my position in the face of a legal provision that does not exist and may never exist, so that consideration today lacks any relevance for the case,” he points out.

The order indicates that in the event that one day an Amnesty Law were to be enacted, with material application criteria that do not even exist today, it will not be up to the instructor to decide on the constitutionality of the norm, nor will it even be up to him to question its validity. constitutional nor the raising of a question of unconstitutionality.

Consequently, Llarena establishes that the challenge is based on a manifestly unfounded cause of abstention, which justifies its inadmissibility 'a limine' (outright), suggesting well-founded that it could have been used to – while it is resolved – delay any action by this instructor aimed at issue a possible European arrest warrant, procedurally foreseeable, and be able to complete a case that is only pending receipt of investigative statements from the rebellious defendants.

For the magistrate, the dilatory purpose is underlined by the recusal documents themselves, which state that the recusal process can be extended to the magistrates called to resolve it, thus generating a chain of exclusions that delays the final decision on the instructor's possibilities of action. and, with it, the possibility of making any decision in the process.

He adds that this obstructive intention is perceived with greater probability from the consideration, already advanced, that on numerous occasions the defendants have unjustifiably challenged the instructor and practically all of the judges of the Supreme Court called to resolve. And that if the recusants, with this or other procedural strategies, manage to reach the date of June 2024 without making it possible to effectively claim the jurisdictional cooperation of other countries, in which the escaped defendants have sought refuge, the request requested by this will decline. instructor to the current European Parliament of which they are part.

For all these reasons, the judge inadmisses 'a limine' this fifth challenge, based on reiterated doctrine of the Constitutional Court, among which he cites an order from this same year that indicates that “the rejection a limine of a challenge can occur, of course, as a consequence of its defective procedural approach, but also in consideration of the moment in which it arises, its reiteration, the circumstances surrounding it, its approach or the arguments that support it, as well as when it is formulated with manifest abuse of rights or involves fraud of law or procedure”.