Belgium ruled out the problems of the Spanish Justice that the fugitives of 1-O allege against the new Euro-orders

• Courts The CJEU agrees with Llarena on the fugitives of 1-O and brings Puigdemont closer to Spain

• Politics Carles Puigdemont insists that his extradition to Spain "will not come"

The Belgian Justice itself, which will be responsible for ruling again on the Euro-orders against those fleeing the

, ruled out the arguments that Carles Puigdemont clings to to argue that the ruling of the

(CJEU) has been favorable.

The ruling made public on Tuesday indicates that in order to allege a risk of violation of rights that allows a delivery to be denied, it is necessary to prove that the Justice of the claiming country has "systemic or generalized deficiencies" in the judicial system.

's general criticism of

the functioning of the Spanish justice system, which according to him is made up, at least in part, of judges appointed for political reasons and which would not offer sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality, is not convincing," said the ruling of

that in January 2021 ratified the refusal -for another reason- to hand over the former

.

This and other statements, rejecting various criticisms of the escape from the Spanish Justice, led the EU lawyer to remind the Court of Luxembourg a few months ago that Belgium "cannot deny the execution of a European arrest warrant when, as the Court of Appeal did of Brussels, it rules out that there are systemic or general deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system of the issuing Member State".

The reference to systemic problems of Justice is not new in the Court of the EU.

It has already been used for resolutions that affect countries where serious situations have been detected, particularly

and

.

The first case mentioned by the CJEU after making its statement refers to Hungary.

In that ruling, there was already talk of "systemic or generalized deficiencies."

Deficiencies that must affect "certain groups of people", it is added, which leads to another of the elements is the sentence that the independence movement has added in its favor as novel.

This is the reference to the possible violation of the rights of "an objectively identifiable group of people to which the interested party belongs".

In addition to appearing in previous CJEU rulings, the Brussels court ruling on the Eurowarrant against Puig ruled out political persecution.

"There is also no reason to fear that Lluis Puig i Gordi would be prosecuted or sentenced for his political opinions," the Court of Appeal stated in the same ruling.

"The fact that it cannot be delivered if (only) prosecuted for a political opinion does not prevent delivery if the person in question is prosecuted for common law crimes that he would have committed for political reasons," he adds, referring to the accusation. of embezzlement that weighs on the former

.

The same court through which the Euro-orders issued by the Supreme Court will pass again also rejected other objections from Puig.

The various reports that she presented against Spain "do not arouse any fear" in the Chamber of "specific violations of her personal rights" taking place.

The demonstration that, within a generalized problem in Justice, the person specifically claimed would suffer a violation of rights is another requirement that the CJEU imposes for exceptional cases in which a Eurowarrant can be denied.

Puig's list of complaints was long.

It included the sentences against Spain by another European court, that of

.

The Belgian judges responded that all countries have been sentenced on several occasions.

In fact, Belgium itself receives more convictions than Spain.

Rejection of the Euroorder

The only thing that the Brussels Court of Appeal accepted to uphold the rejection of the Euro-warrant was a report from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which questioned whether the Supreme Court was competent to try Puig, which violated the right to a judge determined by law.

That alone left everything Puig alleged standing, but it was enough to not deliver it.

When asked by Judge Pablo Llarena about how far Belgium could go to reject a Eurowarrant, the CJEU replied that this UN report was not sufficient reason.

The problem was that Puig was not registered before the Supreme Court, although he was included in the trial bench for the

due to the connection between his actions and his former colleagues from the Government, they were registered.

Paragraph 100 of the CJEU ruling, one of the favorites since the independence movement in recent days, focuses on this point: "A court established by law cannot be considered [...] a national supreme court that decides first and foremost last instance on a criminal matter without having an express legal basis that gives it jurisdiction to prosecute all the defendants".

In this area, the CJEU reproaches Belgium for not asking the Supreme Court for information about its decision to declare itself competent over Puig.

And it indicates that before giving a refusal yes, that request for information must be produced.

If the time comes to clarify it when the new Euro-orders arrive, the Supreme Court will be able to take advantage of what the Constitutional Court reasoned to endorse competition.

Legal base

The TC held that there is that "express legal basis" requested by the CJUE.

"The determination of the objective competence of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court in relation to the plaintiff, and the rest of the defendants, has an unquestionable explicit legal basis", affirms the TC.

The basis is the

itself and the

.

The first gives jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for members of the Government and parliamentarians for acts committed outside of Catalonia.

The second establishes that "the related crimes will be investigated and prosecuted in the same case when the investigation and the joint proof of the facts are convenient for their clarification and for the determination of the proceeding responsibilities."

"It is not a question here," concludes the Constitutional Court, "that there is no express law in the Spanish legal system [...] that allows the extension of the jurisdiction of the Criminal Chamber [of the Supreme Court] to non-registered persons [.. .] Quite the contrary, we have had the opportunity to express at length, on this same basis, the reasons why the resolutions challenged in amparo did not violate the appellant's right to the ordinary judge predetermined by law, since they are supported by legislative provisions that do so. expressly provided".

To once again deny the surrender of those who fled from the

, the Belgian Justice will have to deny these statements of the Constitutional Court and those of Judge Llarena himself, whom he will have to consult, in addition to verifying the systemic deficiencies and the political persecution that he denied in the first

of Eurowarrants.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more