Cercar en aquest blog

Compte enrere

13 de febr. 2020

Judge Llarena rejects EAW request (22 JAN 2018)

COURT RULING. Judge Llarena turned down the public prosecutor's request to issue a second European Arrest Warrant when the exiled President Puigdemont announced (while intending to be invested as president of Catalonia for a second term) he was to give a lecture in Denmark. The reasoning is bizarre!
Click here if need be to read the whole post
http://www.poderjudicial.es/stfls/TRIBUNAL%20SUPREMO/DOCUMENTOS%20DE%20INTER%C3%89S/TS%20Penal%20auto%2022%20enero%202018.pdf

22 JAN 2018

Tribunal Supremo: Auto del juez Llarena en el que deniega dictar orden detencion internacional contra Puigdemont.
https://www.scribd.com/document/369737323/Auto-del-juez-Llarena-en-el-que-deniega-dictar-orden-detencion-internacional-contra-Puigdemont

El Tribunal Supremo deniega la petición de la Fiscalía de enviar a Dinamarca una orden europea de detención contra el expresidente de la Generalitat Carles Puigdemont.
http://www.poderjudicial.es/portal/site/cgpj/menuitem.65d2c4456b6ddb628e635fc1dc432ea0/?vgnextoid=84ea6fbfacd11610VgnVCM1000006f48ac0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d060f20408619210VgnVCM100000cb34e20aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default&vgnextlocale=es_ES

...ooo000ooo...

SUPREME COURT
Criminal Chamber
Resolutioni
SPECIAL CASE
No.: 20907/2017
Decision: Free Text Resolution
From: State Prosecutor’s Office
Resolution Date: 01/22/2018
Investigating judge: Mr. Pablo Llarena Conde
Chamber Secretary: Mrs. María Antonia Cao Barredo
Written by: SOP
Order refusing to reiterate a European arrest warrant for Mr. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, which was previously withdrawn.








Special Case No.: 20907/2017
Investigating judge: Mr. Pablo Llarena Conde
Chamber Secretary: Mrs. María Antonia Cao Barredo


SUPREME COURT
Criminal Chamber
Resolution




Investigating judge: Hon. Mr. Pablo Llarena Conde
In the City of Madrid, on the twenty-second of January, two thousand and eighteen.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
FIRST.- On October 31, 2017, the Hon. Second Chamber decided:
«1) To declare the jurisdiction of this Chamber for the investigation and, where appropriate, the prosecution for the crimes of rebellion, sedition and embezzlement against Ms. Carme Forcadell i Lluis, Mr. Lluís María Corominas i Diez, Mr. Lluis Guinó i Subirós, Ms. Anna Simó i Castelló, Ms. Ramona Barrufet and Santacana, Mr. Joan Josep Nuet i Pujals. To also extend this jurisdiction, in the case where the investigating judge so deems appropriate, with respect to those other criminal cases currently in process and that may refer to facts inseparable from those that have been initially attributed to the defendants.
2) To appoint the judge of this Excellent Chamber Mr. Pablo Llarena Conde, as Investigating judge, according to the established turn. This designation will be communicated to him to the appropriate effects».
SECOND.- On November 24, 2017 this Investigating judge resolved the following:
«To broaden the subjective area of investigation of the present actions, declaring the jurisdiction of this Court to try the criminal responsibility that, for the facts under investigation in the Preliminary Measures 82/2017 of the Court of Central Instruction No. 3, Mr. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Mr. Oriol Junqueras i Vies, Mr. Jordi Turul [sic] i Negre, Mr. Raül Romeva i Rueda, Mr. Antonio Comín i Oliveres, Mr. Josep Rull and Andreu, Ms. Dolors Bassa i Coll, Ms. Meritxell Borras i Solé, Ms. Clara Ponsatí i Obiols, Mr. Joaquim Forn and Chiariello, Mr. Lluis Puig i Gordi, Mr. Carles Mundo i Blanch, Mr. Santiago Vila i Vicente, Ms. Meritxell Serret i Aleu, Mr. Jordi Sánchez Picanyol and Mr. Jordi Cuixart Navarro may be accountable. This is notwithstanding the proceedings against Mr. Josep Lluis Trapero Alvarez and Ms. Teresa Laplana Cocer, as well as against any other possible liable parties on whom the investigation may project responsibility, by said Court of Central Instruction.

The Central Court of Instruction No. 3 is requested, while retaining the actions that are conducive to its own jurisdictional work, to forward the original or testified actions that refer to the investigated people referred to at the start of this operative part».
THIRD.- In the Preliminary Measures 82/2017 of the Central Court of Instruction No. 3 of the National Court, dated November 3, 2017, twowarrants were issued for the search, capture and imprisonment of Mr. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Mr. Antonio Comín i Oliveres. Mr. Lluis Puig i Gordi, Ms. Meritxell Serret i Aleu and Ms. Clara Ponsatí i Obiols, and the appropriate European arrest and surrender warrant were issued for the purpose of extradition, so as to exercise the relevant criminal prosecution. 
FOUR.- On December 5, 2017, by Resolution of this Investigating judge, the European arrest and surrender warrant, as well as the international detention orders, were withdrawn by a Rectification order.
II. LEGAL REASONING
FIRST.- The Fiscal Ministry, with perfect knowledge of the procedural situation of the case, requests that a European arrest warrant be issued against the defendant Mr. Carles Puigdemont Casamajó, who may have left the territory of Belgium in which he had established his residence, to participate in aa academic activity that will take place in a parfticular university in Copenhagen (Denmark). The request of the Public Prfosecutor also calls for the immediate execution of what is decided upon, as the permanence of the prosecuted in this new territory might turn out to be fleeting.
The request, which fits perfectly into the Public Ministry’s function to promote the action of Justice and is a reflection of the requirement collection in art. 39.3 of Law 23/2014, it seems reasonable if it is borne in mind that the investigated person is outside the national territory precisely to avoid a criminal prosecution that seeks to determine the possible scope of his responsibility in the facts being investigated. Nothing would seem more logical than to order his detention, in the territory of Europe, of someone who has fled beyond our borders, if the State Security Forces and Corps have Already been ordered to proceed to his detention, for his subsequent entry into prison.
However, the application faces nuances that make us have to postpone the eventual international detention order it requests.
SECOND.- It is striking that a person who is a fugitive from justice after his furtive departure from our country, reveals in advance his intention to move from the place where he sought his initial refuge, and also proclaims the specific place where he will be present. That the behaviour may be seeking the detention that the Ministry Public requests is something that does not escape the Investigating judge, especially when the investigated person continues to elude appearing in the procedure, and has proclaimed that he eluded it so as not to risk a possible deprivation of freedom.
The analysis of this situation, converges with the notoriety that has taken its proclaimed intention to restore the same government under which the so-called Catalan republic was proclaimed, and to promote its implementation with that government. This will seeks to return to the moment immediately before when the Spanish Senate authorized the application of Article 155 of our fundamental rule [the Constitution], deactivating the only instrument that has been proved capable of restoring the constitutional order.
And the obligatory analysis that the measure requested would effectively serve a constitutional interest that legitimizes it, converges with a third element, facilitated in this case by the legal report presented by the lawyers of the Parliament of Catalonia. In it it is stated that the investigated person cannot claim his investiture as President of the Governing Council of Catalonia, if he freely avoids - for whatever reason - his appearance before the Assembly that has to vote him in.
All these elements constitute the factual support that, in a rational way, illustrates that the investigated person’s boast that he can move to a specific place, he has noother purpose than to seek detention, in order to subvert the purpose of a procedural instrument that is planned to ensure compliance with the legal system, making it a mechanism that allows him to circumvent the legal order that governs parliamentary activity.
Given the legal impossibility of opting for an investiture without appearing before Parliament, the provocation of a detention abroad seeks to equip the investigated person with a justification that his absence is not a result of his free decision as a fugitive from justice, but rather the consequence of a situation that is imposed on him. He thus seeks to favour the unconstitutional and illegal strategy to which this procedure is designed to put an end, also forcing a context in which to be able to delegate his vote, as if he were in the same state as those who are zat the disposal of this Court and have been provisionally deprived of their freedom. In this way, the deprivation of his freedom would be instrumentalized in order to attain the investiture and the vote that he cannot achieve in Parliamentar, though the investigated person would persevere in evading his subjection to the criminal prosecution, avoiding submitting himself to the national jurisdiction and opposing from abroad the extradition that may be requested.
It is therefore evident that the instruments of deprivation of freedom, that the Spanish Constitution and legal system enable for the greater effectiveness of the legal order, must not be deployed to facilitate its transgression and rupture. And the remote chance that the investigated person’s journey does not respond to what has been set out, but rather to an exclusively academic concern, does not make it reasonable not to consider the possibility that has been expressed, and forces us to postpone the arrest warrant to a moment - not necessarily far away - in which the constitutional order and the normal operation of Parliament are not at risk on account of an arrest that - as the Public Prosecutor defends - would be logical in another context.
THIRD.- Futhermore, the decision to withdraw international arrest warrants, originates in the very nature of the facts being prosecuted.
In the admission itself of the procedure it was stated that the facts being investigated could amount to a crime of a multisubjective nature, and the investigation shows that there are indications that it would have been committed thanks to the concert of all investigated, with an inseparable legal unity, that is, that the establishment of different criminal responsibilities must be carried out in a unified manner, because otherwise the continence of the case might be broken and this could lead the procedure to contradictory and divergent answers for the various participants.
The resolution of December 5, 2017 also stated that the arrest warrants, far from facilitating the proper development of the procedure, could introduce an unacceptable restriction of the object of the case since, it being conceivable that the executing State (in application of Articles 3 to 5 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant) might partially reject the execution of the arrest warrants, a restriction of the prosecution for the investigated persons who are fugitives becomes possible. Were this to happen, it would make it hard to give the homogeneous response that the accumulation of proceedings before this Court had justified, because it would introduce a substantive distortion to the defence of the defendants that are indeed at the disposal of this Investigating body, who could be investigated and prosecuted for all the crimes that the Investigating judge contemplates, thus placing them at a legal disadvantage compared to those who are fugitives.
Contrary to what has been expressed in some critical circles, the restriction of the list of offences by a foreign State to whom the surrender of a fugitive from justice is requested is not evidence that the criminal qualification of the facts by the Spanish jurisdiction is inadequate or erroneous. The executing State, can merely verify that the facts for which the surrender of a detainee is requested may be criminal offences according to their legal system or, if it enters the legal classification of the behaviour, it does so from its own legal system, which is not the one under which the bans held those investigated, and it does so without even knowing the details of the defendants' actions, which are unknown because they are still undergoing investigation.
In any event, the decision to withdraw the EAW does not rest on a distrust of the jurisdictional action of a particular State, but on the logical divergences that, in complex crimes, may exist between legal systems of different States of the Union. I mean crimes that - like the one under investigation -, are not listed in the agreed list and collected in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Framework Decision (Article 20.1 of Law 23/2014, of November 20th, on mutual recognition of criminal resolutions in the European Union), for which the control of double typification has been suppressed. And these divergences will not only be encouraged by the different legislative options of the parliaments of the States, but may be enhanced because in the initial period of the investigation, it may not be possible for many of the nuances that influence the criminal legal conception of the facts to be conveyed to the executing State.
This circumstance, together with the fact that the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is not accompanied by either the invoked Danish legislation as required by Article 281.2 LEC, or of any doctrinal or jurisprudential reasoning that - from the facts that are investigated- endorses its analysis of the internal legal order of Denmark, means that we do not know how the request for international collaboration can influence the criminal response provided by the Spanish legislator, specially when aspects of criminal legal relevance are still being investigated that might be essential for the executing State.
Given these considerations,
III. DECISION
I RULE: To turn down the requested international arrest warrant for Mr. Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, postponing it, if need be, to a moment in which the constitutional order and normal parliamentary functioning may not be affected by its issuance, in addition to the development of the investigation allowing the executing State to carry out a full evaluation of the facts that support the request for collaboration.
This is decided, mandated and signed by Pablo Llarena Conde, Judge of the Supreme Court, which I, as the lawyer of the Administration of Justice, certify.
i Translated by M. Strubell from the original text.

Cap comentari:

Publica un comentari a l'entrada