Corinna's lawyers defend English jurisdiction in the lawsuit against Juan Carlos I

The legal representatives of Corinna Zu Sayn-Wittgenstein insisted this Friday in the High Court of London that it is “obvious” that England has jurisdiction to go to trial the lawsuit that the businesswoman has filed against King Emeritus Juan Carlos I of Spain for alleged harassment.

Andrew Green, one of Corinna's lawyers, rejected before Judge Rowena Collins Rice in room number 13 of the court the affirmation of the defense of the emeritus king that England “has no jurisdiction because many of the allegations did not occur in British territory”.

Today the judge hears the final arguments of the parties in the last of the four days of preliminary hearings on the lawsuit, in which the ex-lover of the emeritus king accuses him of having harassed her between 2012 and 2020, although the alleged events that occurred before June 18, 2014 -when Juan Carlos I abdicated- cannot go to litigation because the Court of Appeals recognized his immunity.

“Deeply threatening acts”

To argue the competence of the English courts, Green gave the example of the possibility that Corinna had found out in a foreign airport about some type of harassment, such as illegal access to one of her homes.

The lawyer also referred to the stress and anxiety suffered by Corinna -who did not attend the hearing today- by indicating that “it was in England” where she suffered this emotional state.

“These are deeply threatening acts,” Green insisted, advocating that a medical report on Corinna's anxiety be presented at an eventual trial.

Juan Carlos I has requested that the court dismiss his ex-lover's claim and consider that England does not have jurisdiction.

Corinna asks for compensation of 126 million pounds (about 146 million euros) for damages and affirms that the actions of the emeritus king caused him great anxiety, while the former head of state of Spain, 85, “emphatically” rejects that he participated or directly harassed his ex-lover.

The judge is expected to make her ruling known after the summer, but the decision may be appealed – by the losing party – before the Court of Appeals for England and Wales.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *