The Supreme Court maintains the search and arrest warrants against Carles Puigdemont

The

confirms the national, international and European arrest warrants against the former president of the Catalan Generalitat

and the

and

The Criminal Chamber supports the proceedings of the investigator of the case of the process,

of January 10 and March 4, 2020 in which he agreed to maintain the arrest warrants against the fugitives as well as ask the European Parliament to suspend the corresponding immunity to MEPs Puigdemont and Comín.

The Appeals Chamber dismisses the appeals filed by the four appellants against the aforementioned files, in which they requested that said arrest warrants be annulled, which they considered incompatible with the immunities that correspond to them as MEPs to some of them (Puigdemont and Comín) .

The court notes that taking into account that the appellants have been prosecuted for acts that may constitute serious crimes and that they have positioned themselves in a rebellious situation, "the search, arrest and prison warrants must be considered justified, since they are absolutely necessary in order to ensure the action of Justice, which not only requires the possibility of carrying out proceedings, but also to guarantee that the defendants are at the disposal of the court. "

It also explains that the existence of the arrest warrants that are being challenged have not prevented the appellants from reaching the effective status of MEPs, nor have they prevented them from attending Parliament sessions.

The Chamber analyzes the scope of the immunities and emphasizes that the appellants forget that in this case "it is not a question of the issuance of an arrest warrant against a MEP, but of the acquisition of that condition by some persons against whom, previously At that time, arrest warrants had been issued for the alleged commission of acts that could constitute serious crimes. "

And, in these circumstances, -indicates the Chamber- the CJEU understood, in its judgment of December 19, 2019, that it is possible that a domestic court, if it deems it necessary, maintain the situation of pre-trial detention previously agreed with respect to a person that he has subsequently acquired the status of MEP, provided that, as soon as possible, he requests the Parliament to waive his immunity.

In this regard, it states that this is precisely what has been done in the present case, in which, maintaining the search, arrest and imprisonment orders, the European Parliament has already requested the suspension of the immunity of the appellants who have the status of MEPs and who are in the territory of another Member State.

No contradiction with Europe

The Chamber recalls that the prosecution of the appellants was agreed before they acquired the status of members of the European Parliament.

In this line, it states that "there is no contradiction with European law, insofar as internal law recognizes the same immunities as national parliamentarians, and that it is European law itself that is referred to the regulation of each State. Neither with the recognized purpose of immunities, since the action of the justice of a Member State, initiated long before the acquisition of the status of parliamentarian and by facts that have nothing to do with his functions as such ".

The court notes that the purpose of immunity is to guarantee that the MEP can freely exercise his mandate without being subjected to arbitrary political persecution, operating as a guarantee of the independence and integrity of Parliament.

"But their purpose is not to establish absolute immunity from the action of Justice, even more so when it comes to facts and processes prior to acquiring the status of MEP, and without those having any relationship with the functions that they are assigned as such. In other words, the justified action of the Justice cannot be valued as an arbitrary political persecution, "the magistrates emphasize.

Consequently, it concludes that the situation of those who are judicially persecuted after being elected parliamentarian cannot be assessed in the same way as those who, having already initiated the criminal procedure for acts not related to those functions, later acquire that condition.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

• European Parliament

• Carles puigdemont

• Clara Ponsati

• Supreme court

• Justice

• Catalonia independence

Justice The judicial reform of the Government is almost identical to that of the Law of the Catalan Republic

European ParliamentCitizens tries to stop Carles Puigdemont's offensive in Europe to attack the Supreme Court

The liar of the salesasMoncloa believes that the "slap" of the Judiciary with his appointments also weakens the PP

See links of interest

• News

• Translator

• Programming

• Films

• Topics

• Real Valladolid - Alaves

• Portuguese Grand Prix, live

• Southampton - Everton

• Benevento - Napoli

• Parma - Spezia