The defence of former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont and Junts MEP Toni Comín has submitted a document to the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) in which it requests a disciplinary sanction for Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena for the “inattention” and “unjustified and repeated delay” in the processing and resolution of the appeals for reform that he has filed against the decision not to apply the amnesty law to them. In the document, to which elDiario.es has had access, the president and the Junts MEP consider that the magistrate has committed a very serious disciplinary offence.
On July 8 and 9, their lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, appealed Llarena’s decision not to grant them amnesty and to maintain the arrest warrant against both of them. His defense considers that the crime of embezzlement that the judge attributes to Puigdemont and Comín falls within the limits of the law because they did not enrich themselves “personally” and that, in addition, this decision goes against the “will of the legislator.” But the magistrate has not yet resolved these appeals, which prevents the process from being continued and these decisions from being challenged before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.
In this instance, a favorable resolution for both is not expected, given that its judges have already ruled in the same way as Llarena in relation to those already convicted for the procés, such as Oriol Junqueras. But only when this avenue is exhausted, the Junts leader will be able to go to the Constitutional Court. To do so, he will have to allege a violation of rights that could generate protection that, in addition, has constitutional significance.
There, her defense has an advantage in its favor: the dissenting vote of the progressive Ana Ferrer. In her writing, the magistrate warns that the interpretation to veto the amnesty of her colleagues in the courtroom “runs the risk of breaking the principles of legality and predictability,” two of the assumptions in which the Constitutional Court can correct the decisions of ordinary courts, as has recently occurred in the case of the ERE in Andalusia.
“Taking into account the dates on which the appeals for reform were filed and the corresponding copies were transferred, the appeals for reform filed by the complainants should have been resolved more than a month ago, during the first half of July 2024,” says the appeal, which invokes article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
The law on the Judiciary considers it a very serious offence to be “unjustified and repeated neglect or delay in the initiation, processing or resolution of proceedings and cases or in the exercise of any of the judicial powers”. Very serious offences may lead to a suspension of functions for up to three years or the obligation to a forced transfer, with the consequent impossibility of competing.
Source: www.eldiario.es
