The European Commission does not see the financial interests of the European Union in the process. It is the main conclusion of the community government in the analysis of the amnesty law that has to be done within the framework of the resolution of the prejudicial issues analyzed by the EU Court of Justice at the request of the Court of Accounts. The damage to European finances is the argument that the Supreme Court wielded to leave embezzlement outside the crimes and for which Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa were convicted. That accusation also weighs the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont. However, the community executive does criticize some aspects of the regulations, such as the lifting of precautionary measures or the two -month limitation for the application.
“The argument of the Court of Auditors does not show a sufficiently direct link between the illegalities in question and the resources of the Union, in particular the contribution based on gross national income (RNB) [de España]”, Says the observations document sent by the European Commission to the TJUE that the Spanish has advanced and to which Eldiario.es has had access.“ Indeed, the defendants in the main issue have no authority to collect and make available resources of the Union. In addition, deviant funds are not taken into account directly to generate income made available to the Union under the decision on own resources, ”argues the community government.
“Nor does it seem that it can be considered that the decrease in the RNB of a Member State caused by the illegal and unilateral secession of a part of its territory constitutes a sufficiently direct damage,” adds the European Commission.
What the community government questions is that the amnesty responds to the general interest, although it leaves in the hands of the Spanish courts to determine the scope. “It is up to the National Jurisdictional Body to examine whether the limitations that the amnesty law and, in particular, its article 1 (‘scope of application’), introduces to the principles of legal certainty and equality before the law comply with these requirements,” the text collects, which indicates that “it lacks clarity in the definition of its scope and that, therefore, it can lead to exemptions to exemptions of responsibility of people who normally should contemplated given the object of the amnesty. ”
“It does not seem that the amnesty law effectively responds to an objective of general interest recognized by the Union. Entrance, the LOA seems to constitute a self -love, for two reasons. In the first place, because the votes of its beneficiaries have been fundamental for their approval in the Spanish Parliament. Secondly, because the bill is part of a political agreement to achieve the investiture of the Government of Spain,” By two agents of the legal service, directed at that time by the Spanish Daniel Calleja, who was head of the Cabinet of the PP Loyola Palacio Commissioner, and who has subsequently been appointed as director of the representation of the institution in Spain.
“If there is support to consider that the autoamnegies in which whoever holds political power intends to arm itself by guaranteeing their legal immunity are contrary to the principle of the rule of law, it seems that the same criteria should be applied when who is in the Government guarantees the impunity of their partners in exchange for parliamentary support,” he adds in one of the paragraphs of the analysis, although nothing relative to that political argument. of the document in which the European Commission exposes the answers that you consider to give the TJUE.
In the conclusions, the period of two months is questioned to the competent courts to adopt the measures, although that period has been exceeded in many cases without sanctions imposed. Likewise, it is contrary to European law that in amnesty procedures can only pronounce the prosecution and affected administration, leaving out the other plaintiff (Catalan civil society).
He also rejects that the amnesty supposes the lifting of precautionary measures or that the two -month period for the application is not suspended before the process ends, for example, if the prejudicial issues are raised to the TJUE.
The 36 pages of extension also mentions the report of the Venice Commission, which endorsed the amnesty, although it questioned that it was processed by the emergency route, preventing the positioning of other state institutions.
Source: www.eldiario.es
