Cercar en aquest blog

Compte enrere

14 de gen. 2020

Thread by Josep Costa on Spanish judge Marchena's blunder (English, 12 JAN 2020)

Excellent thread by Josep Costa on the reasons for the monumental blunder by Spain's judge Marchena. I hope he doesn't mind this translation. "Marchena gambled, and he lost."
Click if need be to read the whole post

Source: https://twitter.com/josepcosta/status/1216464777742094339?s=19

English translation

Why did Marchena submit, maintain and eventually ignore the question he had referred to the ECJ?
Today is a good day to remember some keys that have hardly been revealed about the European Parliament's appeal that Puigdemont and Comin won in the same Court.

1. On December 20, the day after the Supreme Court's Judgment was issued, the EU Court of Justice accepted the appeal lodged by Puigdemont and Comín against the rejection of precautionary measures that would have enabled them to be in Strasbourg on July 2.

2.The resolution was signed by the Vice-President of the CJEU, the Spaniard Silva de Lapuerta, a State Lawyer with family ties to the PP.

3. That day we found out that Attorney General Szpunar had taken part in the case, as in the case of Junqueras. https://t.co/p1Qc9gLP2E

4. Puigdemont and Comín's lawsuit, lodged on June 28, was handled alongside the preliminary ruling, which Marchena was to request three days later.

5. The appeal was lodged on September 2. The allegations in the Junqueras case were lodged three weeks later.

6.Junqueras' court hearing involved only his lawyer, the Public Prosecutor's Office, State Lawyers and Vox, the European Commission and the Parliament, which sent Spanish lawyers. The Supreme Court did not allow Puigdemont and Comín lawyers to participate.

7.In the light of the Judgment, on 14 October, Junqueras' lawyer was left alone defending that the MEPs have immunity as from their election. The rest, including the Spaniards representing the Parliament and the Commission, defended Spain's position.

8. The European Parliament and the Commission even called on the case of Puigdemont and Comín to allege that Junqueras was not a Member of the Parliament. The fact that the JEC had never notified their election was the reason why none of them could be in Strasbourg on July 2. https://t.co/VGbcQnDGBJ

9. By coincidence, on the same day, October 14, the European Parliament replied to Puigdemont and Comín's appeal. The case was adjounred till the verdict.

10. Also on the 14th, Marchena issued the Judgment, while maintaining the request for a preliminary ruling, sending a letter with his commitment to comply with the CJEU decision.

11. Marchena thought the case as won, because he knew there would be five Spaniards defending his position. That is why he kept the request. He did not count on the Advocate General questioning the Spanish position, exposing it with his conclusions.

12. Advocate General Szpunar asked about things that no one had raised in the hearing, but that he knew thanks to Puigdemont and Comín's appeal. For example, about the Constitutional Court judgment 119/1990, which was document B.6 in our appeal, lodged on September 2.
https://t.co/Pbl35IVwMX

13. We did not know at the time that the Advocate General, in addition to the conclusions of the Junqueras case, was also writing a report on Puigdemont and Comín's appeal against the Parliament. No one could have predicted this wiould happen, though the link between the two cases was obvious.

14. When the Advocate General presented the conclusions to the Court, the Supreme Court was shocked. Not only did it contradict them over immunity, it also disavoweds the Spanish Electoral Board and the Parliament on the issue of the oath and the results. But they could do nothing anymore. Too late. https://t.co/LD96f96D5D

15. Marchena was confident that the ECJ's decision would be favourable. He thought it would allow him not only to keep Junqueras in prison (which he had decided to do in any case) but also to prevent Puigdemont and Comín from becoming MEPs and having immunity. He gambled, and he lost.

16. For all of this we are convinced that Carles Puigdemont and Toni Comin will be able to stay on as MEPs, whatever the Spanish Electoral Board or the Supreme Court say.

...ooo000ooo...

Per què Marchena va presentar, mantenir i finalment ignorar la qüestió prejudicial al TJUE?

Avui és un bon dia per recordar algunes claus que no s’han explicat gaire sobre el recurs contra el Parlament Europeu que Puigdemont i Comin varen guanyar al mateix Tribunal.

1. El 20 de desembre, l’endemà de resoldre la prejudicial del Suprem, el Tribunal de Justícia de la UE va acceptar el recurs presentat per Puigdemont i Comín contra la denegació de les mesures cautelars que havien de permetre’ls ser a Estrasburg el 2 de juliol.

2. La resolució la va signar la vicepresidenta del TJUE, l’espanyola Silva de Lapuerta, una Advocada de l’Estat amb vincles familiars amb el PP.

3. Aquell dia descobrim que en el cas hi havia intervingut l’Advocat General Szpunar, el mateix que del cas Junqueras. https://t.co/p1Qc9gLP2E

4. La demanda de Puigdemont i Comín, presentada el 28 de juny, es tramita en paral·lel a la qüestió prejudicial, que Marchena planteja tres dies després.

5. El recurs s'havia presentat el 2 de setembre. Les al·legacions del cas Junqueras es presentaven tres setmanes després.

6. A la prejudicial de Junqueras només hi participen, a més del seu advocat, Fiscalia, Advocacia de l’Estat i Vox, la Comissió Europea i el Parlament, que hi envien advocats espanyols. El Suprem no va permetre que hi participassin els advocats de Puigdemont i Comín.

7. A la vista de la prejudicial, el 14 d’octubre, l’advocat de Junqueras es queda sol defensant que els eurodiputats tenen immunitat des de l’elecció. La resta, incloent els espanyols que representaven el Parlament i la Comissió, varen defensar la posició d’Espanya.

8. El Parlament Europeu i la Comissió fins i tot varen invocar el cas de Puigdemont i Comín per al•legar que Junqueras tampoc era diputat. El fet que la JEC no hagués notificat mai la seua elecció va ser el motiu pel qual cap d’ells no va poder ser a Estrasburg el 2 de juliol. https://t.co/VGbcQnDGBJ

9. És casualment el mateix 14 d’octubre que el Parlament Europeu contesta el recurs de Puigdemont i Comín. El cas queda llest per ser resolt.

10. També el dia 14 Marchena dicta la sentència i manté la prejudicial, enviant la carta on es compromet a complir la decisió del TJUE.

11. Marchena donava el cas per guanyat, perquè sabia que hi hauria cinc espanyols defensant la seua posició. Per això va mantenir la prejudicial. No comptava que l’Advocat General pogués qüestionar la postura espanyola, deixant-la en evidència amb les seues conclusions.

12. L’Advocat General Szpunar va preguntar sobre coses que ningú no havia al·legat a la prejudicial, sinó que les coneixia dels recursos de Puigdemont i Comín. Per exemple, sobre la sentència del TC 119/1990, que era el document B.6 del nostre recurs, presentat el 2 de setembre.

13. Aleshores no sabíem que l’Advocat General, a més de les conclusions del cas Junqueras també estava fent l’informe del recurs de Puigdemont i Comín contra el Parlament. Ningú no podia preveure que seria així, tot i que el vincle entre els dos casos era evident.

14. Quan l’Advocat General presenta les conclusions de la prejudicial, al Suprem entren en xoc. No només els contradiu sobre la immunitat, sinó que també desautoritza la JEC i el Parlament sobre la qüestió del jurament i els resultats. Però ja no hi poden fer res. Massa tard. https://t.co/LD96f96D5D

15. Marchena confiava que la resolució del TJUE seria favorable. Pensava que li permetria no només deixar Junqueras a la presó (cosa que tenia decidit fer en tot cas) sinó també impedir que Puigdemont i Comín fossin eurodiputats i tenguessin immunitat. Va apostar i va perdre.

16. Per tot això estam convençuts que Carles Puigdemont i Toni Comin podran seguir sent eurodiputats, diguin el que diguin la JEC o el Tribunal Suprem.




Cap comentari:

Publica un comentari