The Supreme Court has filed this Thursday the cause derived from the lawsuits of

the Laócrata Party

and Vox for the crime of prevarication against the Minister of Development, José Luis Ábalos, for the entry of the Vice President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, into Spanish territory in January this year, despite the ban on the matter established by the

EU

.

The high court emphasizes that non-compliance with the European Union's foreign policy decisions is subject to political control, not criminal responsibility.

The analysis of the Supreme Court is based on the notorious facts that Rodríguez entered Spanish territory on a Falcon plane in the early morning of January 19-20, 2020 and spent a few hours in the VIP lounge of the executive terminal of the Madrid-Barajas airport, stay that implied a violation of the express prohibition of the EU Council to allow entry into the territory of the Union, established in the CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) decisions approved by said Council regarding the situation in Venezuela.

The High Court emphasizes that access to Spanish territory occurred from the moment the aircraft flew over Spanish airspace, and that when the Falcon landed at Barajas Airport, with absolute independence from the terminal to which it was going and the the area of ​​the airport through which he was passing, the violation of the mandate issued by the Council had already been consummated.

In addition, remember the car, the Barajas Airport is located in Spanish territory and the Spanish authorities exercise sovereignty over it.

But once any doubts about the fact that Delcy Rodríguez acceded to Spanish territory and thus violated the PESC decision 2017/2074, approved by the Council of the European Union, the Supreme Court rejects that the proven infringement of a European policy decision of common security is, by this simple fact, constitutive of a crime of prevarication attributable to the national authority that has, where appropriate, consented to that offense.

Thus, the order states that "the obligations derived from CFSP decisions are essentially political in nature. Failure to comply implies the violation of an obligation in the field of foreign policy of the European Union. The control of its validity and its control is incumbent on the own Council ".

And in any case, it underlines that "it is not incumbent on" the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court "to control compliance with the obligations of the Spanish Government with respect to CFSP decisions. The political nature of these decisions is perceived more clearly, if possible , in view of articles 24 of the Treaty on European Union and article 275 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ", which" even limit the competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in matters of foreign policy and common security ".

In short, the magistrates indicate, "to maintain that any violation by a Spanish authority of a CFSP decision must be classified as constituting a crime of prevarication would be contrary to the very nature of the unfulfilled mandate. It is a singular obligation, not integrable in the formal obligations derived from the application of regulations, directives, recommendations and opinions. An obligation, in short, of a marked political nature, the breach of which does not admit any other responsibility than that which is resolved in this area ".

The order also rules out that the facts can be classified, as Vox argued, as constituting a crime of omission of the duty to promote the prosecution of crimes, "since no crime would have been committed -as we have already reasoned- due to non-compliance with the PESC decision that prohibited the entry into European territory of Ms. Delcy Rodríguez ".

Nor does it accept the admission for processing of the complaint to investigate a "non-existent" crime of usurpation of functions, in which the authority or public official is punished who "... lacking attributions to do so, dictates a general provision or suspends its execution ».

The order also states that there is no record that Delcy Rodríguez's trip was motivated by any of the causes that would justify an exemption from the entry ban, such as transit for urgent humanitarian reasons or due to attending meetings of intergovernmental organizations. , to meetings promoted by the Union, or held in a member state that holds the OSCE Chairmanship, in which a political dialogue is maintained that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Venezuela.

Nor does it appear that the Spanish Government had promoted a file of such a nature, which should have been notified in writing to the Council and authorized by this body.

On the other hand, the Chamber emphasizes that the legal-criminal treatment of the facts that have been the subject of the complaint "cannot be made to depend on the political impact generated by its public knowledge", since "the application of criminal law must be subject to the principles that legitimize its application ".

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • European Union

  • Venezuela

  • Vox

  • Jose Luis Ábalos

  • Delcy Rodriguez

  • Supreme court

JusticeThe Madrid judge files the 'Delcy case' considering that the Barajas airport transit area "is not national territory"

JusticeThe Prosecutor's Office reports against investigating Minister José Luis Ábalos for the 'Delcygate'

JusticeThe Prosecutor's Office asks the judge to archive the 'Delcygate' by not appreciating evidence of crime

See links of interest

  • News

  • Translator

  • Programming

  • Films

  • 2021 calendar

  • 2020 calendar

  • Topics

  • Borussia Mönchengladbach - Shakhtar Donetsk

  • Olympiakos - Manchester City

  • Ajax - FC Midtjylland

  • Atlético de Madrid - Lokomotiv Moscow

  • Inter - Real Madrid, live

Keywords: