The Central Electoral Board resolved on JAN 3 2020 to spit in the face of the European Court of Justice preliminary ruling on the immunity of Oriol Junqueras, MEP. It is so amazing I have decided to translate it into English. TO BE CORRECTED
if need be to read the whole post
The Central Electoral Board, in today's session, has reached the agreement that is transcribed as regards the issue of reference.
Case 561/79
Texts of the Popular Party, Citizens-Party of Citizenship and Vox requesting that the Central Electoral Board declare the cause of the inevitable ineligibility of Mr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies as a result of the sentence of deprivation of liberty and in application of article 6.2.a) LOREG .
DECISION.-
FIRST.- It is fitting to accept the requests made by the political formations of the Popular Party, Citizens-Party of Citizenship and Vox in relation to the loss of the status of elected Deputy of the European Parliament of Sr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies given that he is affected by a cause of ineligibility ensuing from having been sentenced to imprisonment in final criminal judgment No. 459/2019, of October 14 (special case No. 3/20907/2017) issued by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, for the following reasons:
First. In the first place, the lack of legitimation adduced by the representation of Mr. Junqueras and the Ahora Republica formation must be rejected, since, as the Jurisprudence has indicated, the competence conferred on the Central Electoral Board by article 19.1 h) of the LOREG to resolve complaints or claims, such as those raised here, does not have limited active legitimacy for its formulation, unlike what happens with the filing of resources, which essentially requires the ownership of a legitimate right or interest specifically linked to the act or resolution that is appealed (STS 933/2016 of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, Seventh Section, of April 28, 2016, FD 1).
Second, Secondly, we must respond to the allegations of the representation of Mr. Junqueras and the Now Republics electoral coalition regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Central Electoral Board and the existence of criminal prejudiciality.
The representation of Mr. Junqueras Vies and the "Now Republics" electoral coalition argues that the decision on the issues raised is not the responsibility of this Board but should be made by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, citing in its support the action taken in execution of the Sentence of the same Chamber 177/2017 that imposed a disqualification penalty on Mr. Francese Homs. Such an approach cannot be accepted because the situation of both cases is very different since while in which it is cited as a point of comparison it was to execute a part of a criminal conviction (disqualification penalty) that had no reflection on the assumptions of electoral ineligibility referred to in article 6.2 of the LOREG, here we are faced with an assumption of application of an express precept of the LOREG-article 6.2. a) that it contemplates a cause of ineligibility and after the prison sentence imposed in the criminal conviction is being executed.
Nor can the rest of the arguments that are deployed to support a supposed class of criminal prejudiciality be accepted since it is unquestionable that there is a firm criminal sentence that imposes the penalty provided in the cause of ineligibility of article 6.2. a) of the LOREG. It is not known that the incident of nullity of actions that is said to have been admitted nor that the execution and effectiveness of the sentence has been suspended as a result of the admission of the nullity incident, actions provided for in article 241 of the Organic Law has been admitted for processing of the Judiciary (LOPJ).
Nor can it be admitted that there must be an independent ruling by the Second Chamber on the effects of the immunity declared by the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union with respect to the sentence of imprisonment that. In fact, it is running. In this regard, the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (Case C-502/19)*, which had as its object a request for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union, by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its paragraph 30 indicates that the Supreme Court itself, in its order for reference indicated that "The questions of interpretation of the law of the Union that it raises to the Court of Justice have not been raised in the context of the preparation of the Judgment in the main case against Mr. Junqueras i Vies, but in the context of the appeal filed by this against the order mentioned in section 25 of this Judgment "; adding that" the procedural treatment of this remedy does not condition the content of the ruling on the main cause, regardless of the eventual effectiveness, which qualifies as "related or" Indirect ", which could result in the acts resulting from the authorization or denial of the permit to leave the prison."
Third. The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (Case C-502/19), which had as its object a request for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the the European Union, by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, by Order of July 1, 2019 has declared that "the acquisition of the status of member of the European Parliament, for the purposes of article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Union is produced by the fact and from the moment of the official proclamation of the electoral results carried out by the Member States (paragraph 711; and later it states that "a person who has been officially proclaimed elected to the European Parliament has acquired, by this done and from that moment, the status of member of said Institution, for the purposes of article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Union, and enjoys, in this concept, the immunity provided for in the second paragraph of the same article" (paragraph 81). It concluded that "Mr. Junqueras i Vies acquired the status of member of the European Parliament on June 13, 2019, the day on which the competent Spanish authorities proceeded to the official proclamation of the results of the elections to the European Parliament held on May 26, 2019" (section 89).
This means that, in accordance with the aforementioned Judicial Order, Mr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies is a member of the European Parliament after his proclamation as elected by this Central Electoral Board on June 13, 2019 (Official State Gazette -BOE- of June 14, 2019), although he has not yet completed the formalities established by national legislation, specifically the provisions of article 224.2 of the LOREG,
p.3
Fourth. However, the procedural situation of Mr. Junqueras has changed since the Judgment of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court number 459/2019, of October 14 (special case no. 3/20907/2017), in which it was imposed to Mr, Junqueras and Vies ""the sentences of thirteen years in prison and thirteen years of absolute disqualification, with the consequent definitive deprivation of all the honors, jobs and public charges held by the prisoner, even if they are effective, and inability to obtain the same or any other honors, charges or public jobs and that of being elected to public office during the time of the sentence." Consequently, the situation of Mr. Junqueras has ceased to be that of provisional imprisonment, which was what he had when he decided the Court of Justice of the European Union, to become the one sentenced by final sentence to imprisonment that It is currently being fulfilled as it is public and notorious. It is precisely this new situation that has legal-electoral effects in the terms set forth below.
Fifth. Article 6.2. a) of the Organic General Electoral Law (LOREG) provides that "The following are ineligible: a) Those convicted by a final sentence, under penalty of deprivation of liberty, for the period that the sentence lasts.".
Furthermore, according to article 35 of the Penal Code in force, the prison sentence that Mr. Junqueras is serving is a prison sentence.
Finally, article 6.4 states that "The causes of ineligibility are also of incompatibility."
In relation to the scope of these precepts it is necessary to take into account various decisions of our Constitutional Court:
1º) The Judgment of the Constitutional Court (STC) 155/2014, of September 25, when it tells us that "As regards the specific causes of incompatibility, it is interesting to point out that, in our legal system, all the causes of ineligibility are also incompatible, but not vice versa or, in terms of this Court« our system is that of concurrence of assumptions of illegality, which prevent them from becoming, in whom they concur, in the taxable person of the electoral relationship, and in cases of incompatibility, in which those of ineligibility that says art. 4, 5 and 6 are transformed, operating, in their case, preventing access to the position or termination thereof, so that those, proclaimed and still elected, who have subsequently been affected by such causes, incur in incompatibility. The resulting cause operates as well as assumption of incompatibility, generating, not of invalidity of the election, but of impediment to assume the elective office or of dismissals, if the seat had been accessed" (STC 45/1983, of May 25, FJ5). In this way, the assumptions of ineligibility become causes of incompatibility due to the express provision of the legislator if, even if the meeting is not present when the representative attended the elections as a candidate, once elected and, while holding the status of parliamentarian, would seek to access to some of the charges classified as ineligible that, at that time, would become causes of incompatibility:'.
p.4
2) The STC 166/1993, of May 20, insofar as it tells us the following:
a) In the first paragraph of its foundation of fourth law: "In this regard, it should be well established that the cause of ineligibility that affects" those convicted by a final sentence under a private prison term, in the period that the sentence lasts "( Article 6.2 a) LOREG] is not a function of the elective fulfillment of the sentence, which also occurs formally when it is suspended, but because of that ruling whose infamous burden, as a maximum social reproach, is the determining reason that the aforementioned is excluded from the electoral process.Therefore, it does not depend on or can depend on the personal situation of the convicted person, liberty or prison, since - on the other hand - the conditional sentence is designed exclusively to avoid the probable corrupting effect of prison life on criminals. primary and with respect to the short term sentences, explicit purpose at the time of its implementation.";
b) In the third paragraph of the aforementioned basis of law, "The inability to be eligible is translated as an automatic consequence of the deprivation of liberty (imprisonment), and only of it, thus disconnected from its accession, the suspension. It is thus constituted as a cause of ineligibility the precept so many times brought and carried (art 6.2 LOREG), which is applicable in all kinds of elections, general or not, as it highlights, from a systematic perspective, its framework in Title 1 of the Law where the 'common provisions for elections by direct universal suffrage' are contained: epigraph sufficiently expressive of its general scope. This has been correctly understood by the contested judgment, none of whose particular reasoning regarding each of the grounds for challenge has been separated from the doctrine established in this regard by this Constitutional Court and, in short, has not violated or unknown the fundamental rights that have been invoked as the basis of protection.".
Sixth. Consequently, it is inferred from the foregoing that Mr. Junqueras i Vies concurs in a case of ineligibility due to having been convicted by a final Judgment of October 14, 2019, issued by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, to the custodial sentence of thirteen years in prison, a fact that determines his resignation as an elected deputy of the European Parliament which, under the terms of the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of December 18, 2109 [sic] previously reviewed had acquired on June 13 2019.
Seventh. This consequence is fully in accordance with the law of the European Union. Article 4 of the Internal Regulation of the European Parliament, concerning the duration of the parliamentary mandate, states that "the mandate begins and expires in accordance with the provisions of articles 5 and 13 of the Act of September 20, 1976".
And it is the aforementioned Act that in its article 13 indicates that "a seat will be vacant when the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament expires due to his resignation, his death, or the annulment of his mandate" (section 1). And subsequently it clarifies that "when the legislation of a Member State expressly establishes the annulment of the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament, his mandate shall expire in application of the provisions of that legislation, the competent national authorities shall inform the European Parliament accordingly." (Section 3).
This is what happens in the present case. The conviction by final sentence to a sentence of deprivation of liberty implies ope legis the loss of the parliamentary mandate, for incurring in the cause of ineligibility established in article 6.2 a) of the LOREG, in relation to article 6.4 of the same legal norm, in the terms set forth in the constitutional jurisprudence described above. It is the responsibility of the Central Electoral Board, as the competent body in the matter in accordance with the provisions of article 224.3 of the LOREG, to declare this circumstance and communicate it to the European Parliament.
SECOND.- For all the foregoing it is appropriate:
a) Declare that the cause of unavoidability of art. 6.2 a) of the LOREG on the grounds of having been sentenced by Judgment number 459/2019, of October 14 (special case n ° 3/20907/2017), of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, to the deprivation of liberty of thirteen high in prison.
b) Declare the loss of the status of Deputy of the European Parliament of Mr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies, with the annulment of his mandate, all with effect from the date of this Decision.
c) Proceed to fill the vacancy as Deputy of the European Parliament, of Mr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies, proclaiming as elected candidate in his replacement Mr. Jordi Solé i Ferrando as the next candidate on the list of the Now Republics electoral coalition with which he stood at the aforementioned elections of May 26, 2019, said candidate will be summoned to appear before the Central Electoral Board to take an oath or promise to comply with the Constitution, in accordance with the provisions of article 224.2 of the LOREG.
This Agreement will be notified to interested parties and communicated to the President of the European Parliament.
Likewise, transfer will be given to the Criminal Court of the Supreme Court.
This Agreement is firm in administrative proceedings. Against this, it is possible to file a contentious-administrative appeal before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court within two months of its notification, in accordance with the provisions of article 12.3.a) of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction Law.
Palace of the Congress of Deputies, January 3, 2020.
PRESIDENT
Antonio-Jesús Fonseca-Herrero Raimundo
MESSRS. GENERAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POPULAR PARTY
Furthermore, according to article 35 of the Penal Code in force, the prison sentence that Mr. Junqueras is serving is a prison sentence.
Finally, article 6.4 states that "The causes of ineligibility are also of incompatibility."
In relation to the scope of these precepts it is necessary to take into account various decisions of our Constitutional Court:
1º) The Judgment of the Constitutional Court (STC) 155/2014, of September 25, when it tells us that "As regards the specific causes of incompatibility, it is interesting to point out that, in our legal system, all the causes of ineligibility are also incompatible, but not vice versa or, in terms of this Court« our system is that of concurrence of assumptions of illegality, which prevent them from becoming, in whom they concur, in the taxable person of the electoral relationship, and in cases of incompatibility, in which those of ineligibility that says art. 4, 5 and 6 are transformed, operating, in their case, preventing access to the position or termination thereof, so that those, proclaimed and still elected, who have subsequently been affected by such causes, incur in incompatibility. The resulting cause operates as well as assumption of incompatibility, generating, not of invalidity of the election, but of impediment to assume the elective office or of dismissals, if the seat had been accessed" (STC 45/1983, of May 25, FJ5). In this way, the assumptions of ineligibility become causes of incompatibility due to the express provision of the legislator if, even if the meeting is not present when the representative attended the elections as a candidate, once elected and, while holding the status of parliamentarian, would seek to access to some of the charges classified as ineligible that, at that time, would become causes of incompatibility:'.
p.4
2) The STC 166/1993, of May 20, insofar as it tells us the following:
a) In the first paragraph of its foundation of fourth law: "In this regard, it should be well established that the cause of ineligibility that affects" those convicted by a final sentence under a private prison term, in the period that the sentence lasts "( Article 6.2 a) LOREG] is not a function of the elective fulfillment of the sentence, which also occurs formally when it is suspended, but because of that ruling whose infamous burden, as a maximum social reproach, is the determining reason that the aforementioned is excluded from the electoral process.Therefore, it does not depend on or can depend on the personal situation of the convicted person, liberty or prison, since - on the other hand - the conditional sentence is designed exclusively to avoid the probable corrupting effect of prison life on criminals. primary and with respect to the short term sentences, explicit purpose at the time of its implementation.";
b) In the third paragraph of the aforementioned basis of law, "The inability to be eligible is translated as an automatic consequence of the deprivation of liberty (imprisonment), and only of it, thus disconnected from its accession, the suspension. It is thus constituted as a cause of ineligibility the precept so many times brought and carried (art 6.2 LOREG), which is applicable in all kinds of elections, general or not, as it highlights, from a systematic perspective, its framework in Title 1 of the Law where the 'common provisions for elections by direct universal suffrage' are contained: epigraph sufficiently expressive of its general scope. This has been correctly understood by the contested judgment, none of whose particular reasoning regarding each of the grounds for challenge has been separated from the doctrine established in this regard by this Constitutional Court and, in short, has not violated or unknown the fundamental rights that have been invoked as the basis of protection.".
Sixth. Consequently, it is inferred from the foregoing that Mr. Junqueras i Vies concurs in a case of ineligibility due to having been convicted by a final Judgment of October 14, 2019, issued by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, to the custodial sentence of thirteen years in prison, a fact that determines his resignation as an elected deputy of the European Parliament which, under the terms of the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of December 18, 2109 [sic] previously reviewed had acquired on June 13 2019.
Seventh. This consequence is fully in accordance with the law of the European Union. Article 4 of the Internal Regulation of the European Parliament, concerning the duration of the parliamentary mandate, states that "the mandate begins and expires in accordance with the provisions of articles 5 and 13 of the Act of September 20, 1976".
And it is the aforementioned Act that in its article 13 indicates that "a seat will be vacant when the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament expires due to his resignation, his death, or the annulment of his mandate" (section 1). And subsequently it clarifies that "when the legislation of a Member State expressly establishes the annulment of the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament, his mandate shall expire in application of the provisions of that legislation, the competent national authorities shall inform the European Parliament accordingly." (Section 3).
This is what happens in the present case. The conviction by final sentence to a sentence of deprivation of liberty implies ope legis the loss of the parliamentary mandate, for incurring in the cause of ineligibility established in article 6.2 a) of the LOREG, in relation to article 6.4 of the same legal norm, in the terms set forth in the constitutional jurisprudence described above. It is the responsibility of the Central Electoral Board, as the competent body in the matter in accordance with the provisions of article 224.3 of the LOREG, to declare this circumstance and communicate it to the European Parliament.
SECOND.- For all the foregoing it is appropriate:
a) Declare that the cause of unavoidability of art. 6.2 a) of the LOREG on the grounds of having been sentenced by Judgment number 459/2019, of October 14 (special case n ° 3/20907/2017), of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, to the deprivation of liberty of thirteen high in prison.
b) Declare the loss of the status of Deputy of the European Parliament of Mr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies, with the annulment of his mandate, all with effect from the date of this Decision.
c) Proceed to fill the vacancy as Deputy of the European Parliament, of Mr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies, proclaiming as elected candidate in his replacement Mr. Jordi Solé i Ferrando as the next candidate on the list of the Now Republics electoral coalition with which he stood at the aforementioned elections of May 26, 2019, said candidate will be summoned to appear before the Central Electoral Board to take an oath or promise to comply with the Constitution, in accordance with the provisions of article 224.2 of the LOREG.
This Agreement will be notified to interested parties and communicated to the President of the European Parliament.
Likewise, transfer will be given to the Criminal Court of the Supreme Court.
This Agreement is firm in administrative proceedings. Against this, it is possible to file a contentious-administrative appeal before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court within two months of its notification, in accordance with the provisions of article 12.3.a) of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction Law.
Palace of the Congress of Deputies, January 3, 2020.
PRESIDENT
Antonio-Jesús Fonseca-Herrero Raimundo
MESSRS. GENERAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POPULAR PARTY
...ooo000ooo...
La Junta Electoral Central, en
sesión del día de la fecha, ha adoptado el acuerdo que se transcribe respecto del asunto de referencia.
Expte. 561/79
Escritos del Partido Popular,
Ciudadanos-Partido de la Ciudadanía y Vox solicitando que la Junta
Electoral Central declare la causa de inelegibilidad sobrevenida de
don Oriol Junqueras i Vies como consecuencia de la condena de
privación de libertad y en aplicación del articulo 6.2.a) LOREG.
ACUERDO.-
PRIMERO.- Procede acoger las peticiones planteadas
por las formaciones políticas Partido Popular, Ciudadanos-Partido de
la Ciudadanía y Vox en relación con la pérdida de la condición de
Diputado electo del Parlamento Europeo por parte de don Oriol
Junqueras i Vies en razón de concurrir en su persona una causa
de inelegibilidad sobrevenida por haber sido condenado a pena
privativa de libertad en Sentencia penal firme número 459/2019, de
14 de octubre (causa especial n° 3/20907/2017) dictada por la Sala
Segunda del Tribunal Supremo, ello por las siguientes razones:
Primera. En primer lugar, debe rechazarse la
falta de legitimación aducida por la representación del Sr.
Junqueras y de la formación Ahora Repúblicas, por cuanto, como ha
señalado la Jurisprudencia, la competencia conferida a la Junta
Electoral Central por el articulo 19.1 h) de la LOREG para resolver
quejas o reclamaciones, como las aquí planteadas, no tiene limitada
la legitimación activa para su formulación, a diferencia de lo que
sucede con la interposición de recursos, que exige por esencia la
titularidad de un derecho o interés legítimo específicamente
vinculado al acto o resolución que se recurre (STS 933/2016 de la
Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo, Sección
Séptima, de 28 de abril de 2016, FD 1).
Segunda, En segundo término debemos dar
respuesta a las alegaciones de la representación del Sr. Junqueras y
de la coalición electoral Ahora Repúblicas relativas a la
incompetencia de la Junta Electoral Central y a la existencia de
prejudicialidad penal.
La representación del Sr.
Junqueras Vies y de la coalición electoral "Ahora Repúblicas"
sostiene que la decisión sobre las cuestiones planteadas no compete
a esta Junta sino que debería efectuarla la Sala Segunda del
Tribunal Supremo, citando en su apoyo Io actuado en ejecución de la
Sentencia de la propia Sala 177/2017 que impuso una pena de
inhabilitación a don Francese Homs. Tal planteamiento no puede ser
aceptado pues la situación de ambos casos es muy diferente ya que
mientras en el que se cita como punto de comparación se trataba de
ejecutar una parte de una condena penal (pena de inhabilitación) que
no tenía reflejo en los supuestos de inelegibilidad electoral
contemplados en el articulo 6.2 de la LOREG, aquí estamos ante un
supuesto de aplicación de un expreso precepto de la LOREG-articulo
6.2. a) que contempla una causa de inelegibilidad y después de que
se esté ejecutando la pena privativa de libertad impuesta en la
condena penal,
p.2
Tampoco pueden aceptarse el
resto de los argumentos que se despliegan para fundar una supuesta
clase de prejudicialidad penal puesto que es indudable que existe una
sentencia penal firme que Impone la pena prevista en la causa de
inelegibilidad del articulo 6.2. a) de la LOREG. No consta que haya
sido admitido a trámite el incidente de nulidad de actuaciones que
se dice promovido nl que se haya suspendido la ejecución y eficacia
de la sentencia como consecuencia de la admisión del incidente de
nulidad, actuaciones previstas en el articulo 241 de la Ley Orgánica
del Poder Judicial (LOPJ).
Tampoco cabe admitir que debe
existir un pronunciamiento independiente de la Sala Segunda sobre los
efectos de la inmunidad declarada por la Sentencia del Tribunal de
Justicia de la Unión Europea respecto de la condena a la pena
privativa de libertad que. De hecho, se está ejecutando. En este
sentido la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea
(Gran Sala) de 19 de diciembre de 2019 (asunto C-502/19), que tuvo
por objeto una petición de decisión prejudicial planteada, con
arreglo al articulo 267 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión
Europea, por la Sala Segunda del Tribunal Supremo, en su apartado 30
señala que el propio Tribunal Supremo, en su auto de remisión
señaló que "las cuestiones de interpretación del
Derecho de la Unión que plantea al Tribunal de Justicia no se han
suscitado en el marco de la preparación de la Sentencia en la causa
principal contra el Sr. Junqueras i Vies, sino en el
contexto de recurso de súplica interpuesto por este contra el auto
mencionado en el apartado 25 de la presente Sentencia";
añadiendo que "el tratamiento procesal de este recurso no
condiciona el contenido del pronunciamiento sobre la causa principal,
al margen de la eventual eficacia, que califica de"re¢ lela o
indirecta", que pudieran originar los actos
consecuentes a la autorización o denegación del permiso de salida
del centro penitenciario".
Tercera. La Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia
de la Unión Europea (Gran Sala) de 19 de diciembre de 2019 (asunto
C-502/19), que tuvo por objeto una petición de decisión prejudicial
planteada, con arreglo al articulo 267 del Tratado de Funcionamiento
de la Unión Europea, por la Sala Segunda del Tribunal Supremo,
mediante Auto de 1 de Julio de 2019 ha declarado que "la
adquisición de la condición de miembro del Parlamento Europeo, a
efectos del art. 9 del Protocolo sobre los privilegios y las
inmunidades de la Unión se produce por el hecho y desde el momento
de la proclamación oficial de los resultados electorales efectuados
por los Estados miembros (apartado 711; Y más
adelante señala que "una persona que ha sido oficialmente
proclamada electa al Parlamento Europeo ha adquirido, por este hecho
y desde ese momento, la condición de miembro de dicha Institución,
a efectos del articulo 9 del Protocolo sobre los privilegios y las
inmunidades de fa Unión, y goza, en este concepto, de la inmunidad
prevista en el párrafo segundo del mismo articulo"(apartado
81). Concluyendo que "el Sr. Junqueras i Vies adquirió la
condición de miembro del Parlamento Europeo el 13 de junio de 2019,
día en que las autoridades españolas competentes procedieron a la
proclamación oficial de los resultados de las elecciones al
Parlamento Europeo celebradas el 26 de mayo de 2019"
(apartado 89).
Ello implica que, conforme a lo
señalado en la referida resolución Judicial, don Oriol Junqueras i
Vies es miembro del Parlamento Europeo tras su proclamación como
electo por esta Junta Electoral Central el día 13 de junio de 2019
(Boletín Oficial del Estado -BOE- de 14 de junio de 2019), aunque no
ha cumplimentado aún las formalidades fijadas por la legislación
nacional, en concreto lo previsto en el artículo 224.2 de la LOREG,
p.3
Cuarta. Sin embargo, la situación procesal
del Sr. Junqueras ha cambiado a partir de la Sentencia de la Sala
Segunda del Tribunal Supremo número 459/2019, de 14 de octubre
(causa especial no. 3/20907/2017), en la que se impuso al Sr,
Junqueras i Vies "las penas de trece años de
prisión y trece años de inhabilitación absoluta, con la
consiguiente privación definitiva de todos los honores, empleos y
cargos públicos que tenga el penado, aunque sean efectivos, e
incapacidad para obtener los mismos o cualesquiera otros honores,
cargos o empleos públicos y la de ser elegido para cargo público
durante el tiempo de la condena".
En consecuencia, la situación del Sr.
Junqueras ha dejado de ser la de prisión provisional, que era la que
tenla cuando resolvió el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea,
para pasar a ser la de condenado por sentencia firme a pena privativa
de libertad que está siendo cumplida actualmente como es público y
notorio. Es precisamente esta nueva situación la que tiene efectos
Jurídico-electorales en los términos que se expondrá a
continuación.
Quinta. El articulo 6.2. a) de la Ley orgánica
Electoral General (LOREG) dispone que "Son inelegibles: a)
Los condenados por sentencia firme, a pena privativa de
libertad, en el período que dure la pena.".
Por otra parte, según el
articulo 35 del Código Penal vigente la pena de prisión que está
cumpliendo el Sr. Junqueras es una pena privativa de libertad.
Finalmente, el articulo 6.4
establece que "Las causas de inelegibilidad lo son también
de incompatibilidad."
En relación con el alcance
de estos preceptos es necesario tomar en consideración diversos
pronunciamientos de nuestro Tribunal Constitucional:
1º) La Sentencia del
Tribunal Constitucional (STC) 155/2014, de 25 de septiembre, cuando
nos dice "En cuanto a las concretas causas de
incompatibilidad, interesa destacar que, en nuestro ordenamiento
jurídico, todas las causas de inelegibilidad lo son también de
incompatibilidad, pero no a la inversa o, en términos
de este Tribunal «nuestro sistema es el de la concurrencia de
supuestos de ïnelegibllidad, que impiden el convertirse, en quien
concurran, en sujeto pasivo de la relación electoral, y de supuestos
de incompatibilidad, en los que se transforman las de inelegibilidad
que dice el art. 4, 5 y 6, operando, en su caso, impidiendo el acceso
al cargo o el cese en el mismo, de modo que aquellos, proclamados y
aún elegidos, que han quedado posteriormente afectados por tares
causas, Incurren en incompatibilidad. La causa sobrevenida
opera así como supuesto de incompatibilidad, generadora, no de
invalidez de la elección, sino de impedimento para asumir el cargo
electivo o de ceses, si se hubiera accedido al escaño" (STC
45/1983, de 25 de mayo, FJ5). De esta forma, los supuestos
de inelegibilidad se transforman en causas de incompatibilidad por
expresa previsión del legislador si, aun no concurriendo la tacha
cuando el representante concurrió a tas elecciones como candidato,
una vez electo y, mientras ostente la condición de parlamentario,
pretendiera acceder a algunos de los cargos calificados como
inelegibles que, en ese momento, se transformarían en causas de
incompatibilidad:'.
p.4
2°) La STC 166/1993, de 20
de mayo, en cuanto nos dice lo siguiente:
a) En el párrafo primero de
su fundamento de derecho cuarto:"En tal sentido conviene
dejar bien sentado que la causa de inelegibilidad que
afecta a "los condenados por sentencia firme a pena privatlva de
libertad, en el periodo que dure la pena" (art. 6.2 a)
L.O.R.E.G.] no está en función del cumplimiento
electivo de la condena, que también se produce formalmente cuando se
suspende, sino por ese pronunciamiento cuya carga infamante, como
máximo reproche social, es la razón determinante de
que el así señalado sea excluido del proceso
electoral. En consecuencia, no depende ni puede depender de la
situación personal del condenado, libertad o prisión, ya que -por
otra parte- la condena condicional està concebida exclusivamente
para evitar el probable efecto corruptor de le vida
carcelaria en los delincuentes primarios y respecto de
las penas privativas de libertad de corta duración, finalidad
explícita en el momento de su implantación.";
b) En el párrafo tercero del citado fundamento de
derecho, "La incapacidad para ser elegible se
traduce como consecuencia automática de la privación de libertad
(el arresto mayor), y sólo de ella, desconectada pues de su
accesoría, la suspensión. Así la configura como causa
del inelegibilidad el precepto tantas veces traído y llevado (art
6.2 L.O.R.E.G.), que es aplicable en toda clase de elecciones,
generales o no, como pone de relieve, desde una perspectiva
sistemática, su encuadramiento en el Título 1 de la
Ley donde se contienen las "disposiciones comunes para las
elecciones por sufragio universal directo': epígrafe
suficientemente expresivo de su alcance general. Así
lo ha entendido correctamente la sentencia impugnada, ninguno de
cuyos razonamientos particulares respecto de cada uno de los motivos
de impugnación esgrimidos se ha separado de la doctrina sentada al
respecto por este Tribunal Constitucional y, en suma, no ha
quebrantado o desconocido los derechos fundamentales que se han
invocado como fundamento del amparo.".
Sexta. En consecuencia, de lo expuesto se
infiere que concurre en el Sr. Junqueras i Vies una causa de
inelegibilidad sobrevenida por haber sido condenado por Sentencia
firme de 14 de octubre 2019, dictada por la Sala Segunda del Tribunal
Supremo, a la pena privativa de libertad de trece años de prisión,
hecho que determina su cese como diputado electo del Parlamento
Europeo que, en los términos de la Sentencia del Tribunal de
Justicia de la Unión Europeo de 18 de diciembre de 2109 [sic]
anteriormente reseñada había adquirido el 13 de Junio de 2019,
Séptimo. Esta consecuencia es plenamente
conforme con el Derecho de la Unión Europea. El articulo 4 del
Reglamento interno del Parlamento Europeo, relativo a la duración
del mandato parlamentario, señala que "el mandato comienza y
expira según lo dispuesto en los artículos 5 y 13 del
Acta de 20 de septiembre de 1976".
Y es la referida Acta la que
en su articulo 13 indica que "un escaño quedará vacante
cuando el mandato de un diputado al Parlamento Europeo expire debldo
a su dimisión, a su fallecimiento, o a la anulación de su mandato"
(apartado 1). Y posteriormente aclara que "cuando la
legislación de un Estado miembro establezca expresamente ia
anulación del mandato de un diputado al Parlamento Europeo,
su mandato expirará en aplicación de las disposiciones de esa
legislación, Las autoridades nacionales competentes informarán de
ello al Parlamento Europeo." (Apartado 3).
Esto es lo que sucede en el
presente caso. La condena mediante sentencia firme a una pena de
privativa de libertad implica ope legis la pérdida del
mandato parlamentario, por incurrir en la causa de inelegibilidad
establecida en el articulo 6.2 a) de la LOREG, en relación con el
articulo 6.4 de la misma norma legal, en los términos recogidos en
la Jurisprudencia constitucional anteriormente reseñada. Corresponde
a la Junta Electoral Central, como órgano competente en la materia
conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 224.3 de la LOREG declarar
esta circunstancia y comunicarlo al Parlamento Europeo.
SEGUNDO.- Por todo lo expuesto procede:
a) Declarar que concurre en
don Oriol Junqueras i Vies la causa de inelegibilidad sobrevenida del
art. 6.2 a) de la LOREG en razón a haber sido condenado por
Sentencia número 459/2019, de 14 de octubre (causa especial n°
3/20907/2017), de la Sala Segunda del Tribunal Supremo, a la pena
privativa de libertad de trece altos de prisión.
b) Declarar la pérdida de
la condición de Diputado del Parlamento Europeo de don Oriol
Junqueras i Vies, con anulación de su mandato, todo ello con efectos
desde la fecha de este Acuerdo.
c) Proceder a cubrir la
vacante como Diputado del Parlamento Europeo, de don Oriol Junqueras
i Vies, proclamando como candidato electo en su sustitución a don
Jordi Solé i Ferrando por ser el siguiente candidato de la
lista de la coalición electoral Ahora Repúblicas con la que
concurrió a las citadas elecciones de 26 de mayo de 2019, Dicho
candidato será convocado a efectos de que comparezca ante la Junta
Electoral Central para que preste juramento o promesa de acatamiento
a la Constitución, conforme a Io dispuesto en el articulo 224.2 de
la LOREG.
Este Acuerdo se notificará
a los interesados y se comunicará al Presidente del Parlamento
Europeo.
Asimismo, se dará traslado
a la Sala de Io Penal del Tribunal Supremo.
El presente Acuerdo es firme
en vía administrativa. Contra el mismo cabe la interposición de
recurso contencioso-administrativo ante la Sala Tercera del Tribunal
Supremo en el plazo de dos meses desde su notificación, conforme a
lo dispuesto en el articulo 12.3.a) de la Ley de Jurisdicción
Contencioso-Administrativa.
Palacio del Congreso de los Diputados, 3 de enero de 2020.
EL PRESIDENTE
Antonio-Jesús Fonseca-Herrero
Raimundo
SRES. REPRESENTANTES GENERALES DEL PARTIDO POPULAR
...ooo000ooo...
* Summary:
Judgment: (SP; Ref. CLI:EU:C:2019:1115):
...ooo000ooo...
Sesión del 03/01/2020
-
Nº Ac: 3/2020 Expte.: 561/79
Escritos del Partido Popular, Ciudadanos-Partido de la Ciudadanía y Vox solicitando que la Junta Electoral Central declare la causa de inelegibilidad sobrevenida de don Oriol Junqueras i Vies como consecuencia de la condena de privación de libertad y en aplicación del artículo 6.2.a) LOREG.
...ooo000ooo...
Composition:
http://www.juntaelectoralcentral.es/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=JEC%2FJEC_Layout&cid=1379061462478&d=Touch&packedargs=d%3DTouch&pagename=jec%2Fwrapper%2FJEC_Wrapper
Presidente
Excmo. Sr. D. Antonio Jesús Fonseca-Herrero Raimundo
Vicepresidenta
Excma. Sra. D.ª Inés Huerta Garicano
Vocales Magistrados del Tribunal Supremo
Excma. Sra. D.ª Ana María Ferrer García **
Excmo. Sr. D. Antonio Vicente Sempere Navarro
Excmo. Sr. D. Francisco José Navarro Sanchís
Excma. Sra. D.ª María Luz García Paredes
Excmo. Sr. D. Eduardo de Porres Ortiz de Urbina *
Excmo. Sr. D. José Luis Seoane Spiegelberg ^
Vocales Catedráticos de Derecho o de Ciencias Políticas y de Sociología
Excmo. Sr. D. Carlos Vidal Prado (PP)
Excma. Sra. D.ª Inés Olaizola Nogales * (Unidos Podemos)
Excma. Sra. D.ª Consuelo Ramón Chornet * (PSOE)
Excmo. Sr. D. Juan Montabes Pereira * (PSOE)
Excma. Sra. D.ª Silvia del Saz Cordero (Ciudadanos)
* Dissenting votes / vots particulars
http://www.juntaelectoralcentral.es/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=JEC%2FJEC_Layout&cid=1379061462478&d=Touch&packedargs=d%3DTouch&pagename=jec%2Fwrapper%2FJEC_Wrapper
Presidente
Excmo. Sr. D. Antonio Jesús Fonseca-Herrero Raimundo
Vicepresidenta
Excma. Sra. D.ª Inés Huerta Garicano
Vocales Magistrados del Tribunal Supremo
Excma. Sra. D.ª Ana María Ferrer García **
Excmo. Sr. D. Antonio Vicente Sempere Navarro
Excmo. Sr. D. Francisco José Navarro Sanchís
Excma. Sra. D.ª María Luz García Paredes
Excmo. Sr. D. Eduardo de Porres Ortiz de Urbina *
Excmo. Sr. D. José Luis Seoane Spiegelberg ^
Vocales Catedráticos de Derecho o de Ciencias Políticas y de Sociología
Excmo. Sr. D. Carlos Vidal Prado (PP)
Excma. Sra. D.ª Inés Olaizola Nogales * (Unidos Podemos)
Excma. Sra. D.ª Consuelo Ramón Chornet * (PSOE)
Excmo. Sr. D. Juan Montabes Pereira * (PSOE)
Excma. Sra. D.ª Silvia del Saz Cordero (Ciudadanos)
* Dissenting votes / vots particulars
** Conflict of interest. No vote.
...ooo000ooo...
"La resolución ha contado con el voto particular de cinco miembros de la JEC --Eduardo de Porres Ortiz de Urbina, José Luis Seoane Spiegelberg, Inés Olaizola Nogales, Consuelo Ramón Chornet y Juan Montabes Pereira--, que coinciden en que se debería esperar a conocer la resolución del Tribunal Supremo sobre la situación del líder de ERC."
https://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-jec-rechaza-otorgar-credencial-junqueras-eurodiputado-20200103210803.html
...ooo000ooo...
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada