Brussels affirms that the Venice opinion will "nourish" its examination of the amnesty and the dialogue with the Government

The Venice Commission noted in its report its concern about the "broad and determined" scope of the law and asked for it to be limited.

BRUSSELS, April 18 (EUROPA PRESS) -

The European Commission continues with its detailed analysis of the Amnesty Law and reserves its opinion until it is adopted in its final form, but has announced that it will incorporate the opinion of the Venice Commission into its examination and into the contacts it maintains with the Government. that does not indicate a conflict with the separation of powers but is concerned about the wide scope of the Spanish one and the division it generates despite having reconciliation as its objective.

This was indicated in a debate in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament, a senior community official in the Justice Department, Julien Mousnier, when questioned about the follow-up that Brussels will give to the recommendations of the Venice Commission, a body outside the European Union but which the European institutions listen to when setting common democratic standards.

"It is clear that the opinion of the Venice Commission must inform the ongoing discussions, which have not ended," said Mousnier, who specified that the community services are supported by this document prepared at the request of the Senate both in the "contacts with the Spanish authorities" as in its examination of the norm and in the annual report on the rule of law that Brussels publishes every summer on the democratic health in each Member State.

In another European parliamentary commission last January, Mousnier already said that Brussels "takes very seriously" the evaluation of the rule agreed by the PSOE with ERC and Junts to ensure the investiture of Pedro Sánchez. He also explained that the conclusions of the Community Executive will be based on the final text adopted after its passage through the Senate and the Congress of Deputies, so it will not be formally pronounced until this process is concluded.

"It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Commission gives the most important opinion to the work of the Venice Commission. In fact, in many cases the Commission recommends that Member States consult with Venice before embarking on major reforms," ​​he explained. this Thursday the community representative.

This Thursday's debate, which is being held in the last session of the parliamentary commission before the activity of the European Parliament ceases to focus on the elections next June, also included the participation of the vice-president of the Venice Commission who Italian Marta Cartabia participated in drafting the opinion.

In his speech, Cartabia reviewed the main conclusions of the public opinion and wanted to make it clear that it is not up to the body of which he is a part to rule on the constitutionality of the law because that responsibility falls on the national courts, nor on whether it conflicts with the Community law, because that analysis will be carried out by Brussels.

However, the Italian politician has stressed that according to international standards and the comparison with the situation in more than fifty countries, "it is clear that amnesties as such do not go against the separation of powers." Still, he has noted, there are a series of "principles" that must be met to preserve international standards.

Regarding the conclusions of the Spanish case, the Venice Commission shows "concern", for example, about the "broad and indeterminate scope" of the amnesty for not including a clear list of covered crimes but rather a definition that in the opinion of the rapporteur Italian assume "open clauses" that "open indeterminacy." At this point, Venice recommends "shortening and defining more precisely" its scope, also with regard to the time frame that forgiveness will cover.

Another of the keys developed by Venice is the convenience of seeking larger majorities to ensure coexistence and avoid the strong division that it has perceived both in the political class and in society. "A qualified majority and an inclusive process to approve the amnesty is considered, in general standards in the case of Spain in particular, as an instrument to reach the goal of reconciliation," she concluded.

Regarding the follow-up that Venice's recommendations will have, Cartabia has clarified that they do not carry out surveillance tasks and that they could carry out a new follow-up opinion if requested again by the national authorities.

The debate lasted 45 minutes and only seven MEPs participated, including 'popular', socialists, liberals, ERC and Junts. From the PP bench, Javier Zarzalejos has denounced that it is a "law of indiscriminate impunity" whose fundamental element is to grant amnesty to those who "support the Government." Citizens MEP Maite Pagazaurtundúa has expressed herself in a similar way, warning of the "traps of governments with populist traits."

Among those who have defended the law, the socialist Javier Moreno has insisted that it is necessary for the sake of "coexistence" and has urged the PP to support its adoption and also to lift the blockade of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ).

ERC MEP Diana Riba, in turn, has assured that it is not only intended to be an act of "justice and reparation", but also a "gesture of solidarity and recognition to those who peacefully and democratically defended" the independence of Catalonia. For Junts MEP Toni Comín it is about "rectifying a very serious error in the judicial system."

Outside of the Spanish delegations, the German socialist Birgit Sippel and the Dutch liberal Sophie in 't Veld took the floor. The first has regretted the "political use of internal games" of the parties in Spain for elevating this debate to the European Union, although it has stressed that the ruling does not see a collision with the separation of powers and has asked to trust the judges who will decide. "individually" how to apply the amnesty.

The second has also considered that it is a debate "politicized by all parties" but has pointed out that there are "legitimate questions" that must be answered by European organizations, while urging the European Commission not to let its guard down. and "monitor" that the Venice recommendations are applied.