Prosecutor's Office will appeal the inadmissibility of Puigdemont's appeal and will decide a TC with a progressive majority

You have until September to challenge the decision adopted by the conservative majority of the Holiday Room

The Prosecutor's Office of the Constitutional Court (TC) will appeal in September the decision of the conservative majority of the Holiday Chamber to reject the amparo appeal filed by the former president of the Generalitat of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, against the national arrest warrant issued by the Supreme Court , which will force the debate in the plenary session of the guarantee body, which has a progressive majority.

Prosecutor sources have confirmed to Europa Press that the Public Prosecutor's Office will present an appeal on the understanding that there was no urgency that would lead the Holiday Chamber to resolve the request to suspend the national arrest warrant that the Supreme Court issued for Puigdemont.

From the Prosecutor's Office they consider that it was not a matter that required a resolution outside the Constitutional Plenary which, it should be remembered, has a progressive majority, unlike the Holiday Room, which has a conservative majority.

Said Chamber has agreed this Wednesday by two votes -those of the magistrates of the conservative wing César Tolosa and Concepción Espejel-- against one -that of the magistrate of the progressive sector Laura Díez-- to reject Puigdemont's appeal and has warned that his decision is appealable by the Public Ministry within a period of three days. Of course, August is a non-working month in the courts, so, in reality, the Prosecutor's Office has until September to challenge the resolution.

The conservative majority of the Vacation Chamber has declared its competence to hear about the decision to admit it for processing every time it has considered it necessary to resolve the request -through a very precautionary measure- to suspend the arrest warrant of the Supreme.

According to the resolution of the Constitutional Court, collected by Europa Press, Puigdemont --and the former Catalan councilor Toni Comín-- alleged that they considered their rights to effective judicial protection, to the ordinary judge predetermined by law and to a process with all the guarantees violated. .

Both insisted that they have parliamentary immunity by holding a seat in the European Parliament, so they consider it "obvious" that a national search, arrest and imprisonment order is "absolutely incompatible" with the immunity they enjoy, in addition to " manifestly disproportionate."

In 10 pages, the Chamber has dismissed their arguments on the understanding that no fundamental right has been violated, neither in the case of Puigdemont nor in that of Comín. "The violations invoked by the appellants derived from the possible impairment of their guarantee of parliamentary immunity, for not having requested the request, lack constitutional support," the magistrates have pointed out.

In addition, they have made it ugly that both leaders once again questioned the competence of the Supreme Court and the suitability of the investigating judge Pablo Llarena to issue resolutions such as the one challenged. "These complaints are nothing more than a reiteration of others invoked in previous amparo appeals filed by the same appellants," they have pointed out.

THE PROGRESSIVE JUSTICE DISAGREES

The order of the Vacation Room has had the particular vote of Díez, who has dissented from the majority. The magistrate has assured that "a decision that should not have been adopted in the Vacation Section has been unnecessarily precipitated," according to the letter collected by Europa Press. In her opinion, the matter should be resolved in the Plenary of the TC.

For Díez, the request for precautionary measures "does not justify by itself the resolution of matters by this Section, but the relevant urgent circumstances must be present that do not exist in this case, since the appellants are not in the territory affected by search and arrest warrants, can carry out their representative functions outside the national territory and are not currently deprived of their liberty."

In line, in his private opinion of two pages, Díez has insisted that the inadmissibility of this amparo appeal "departs, for the first time, from the practice followed by this court in relation to the amparos presented in relation to the special cause 20907-2017 --known as the cause of the 'procés'--, which have been systematically admitted and referred to Plenary for resolution".

Court sources consulted by Europa Press have stressed that it is an "unprecedented" decision because in the last six years the plenary session of the court has unanimously agreed to admit the appeals relating to the 'procés' because they have constitutional significance.

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME

The inadmissibility of the amparo appeal confirms the decision of the investigating judge of the 'procés' in the Supreme Court, magistrate Pablo Llarena, to order the arrest of the independence leader if he steps on national territory, since he agreed to prosecute him for the crimes of disobedience and embezzlement aggravated in the framework of the review that he carried out after the entry into force of the reform of the Penal Code that repealed the crime of sedition for which Puigdemont was initially being investigated.

Last June, the Supreme Court of Appeals confirmed Llarena's decision by dismissing the arguments of the defenses --who asked to annul the prosecution-- and of the popular accusation exercised by Vox --which claimed to apply the crime of aggravated public disorder --.

On that occasion, the high court also endorsed that the examining magistrate issue the national arrest warrant against Puigdemont, considering that if the pro-independence leader did not adopt a "collaborative position with Justice" he should "assume the consequences that failure to appear with him". Thus, he stressed that the arrest warrants did not imply an "arbitrary action" by the instructor.

On the sidelines, last July the Prosecutor's Office asked Judge Llarena to activate the international arrest warrants against Puigdemont and Comín, but the investigating magistrate agreed that he would not act until the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on the eventual precautionary measures that both can present to see their parliamentary immunity provisionally restored.