The Constitutional Court rejects Puigdemont's appeal against the arrest warrant issued by the Supreme Court

The Vacation Room adopts the decision by two votes of the conservative wing against one of the progressive sector

The Constitutional Court (TC) has inadmissible for processing the amparo appeal filed by the former president of the Generalitat of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont and the former Catalan councilor Toni Comín against the arrest warrants issued by the Supreme Court on both for crimes of disobedience and embezzlement.

In an order issued this Wednesday, collected by Europa Press, it is stated that the decision has been adopted by the Vacation Chamber of the guarantee body by two votes in favor --those of the magistrates of the conservative wing César Tolosa and Concepción Espejel-- and one against -that of the magistrate of the progressive sector Laura Díez-.

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

As stated in the resolution of the TC, Puigdemont and 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."

THE PROSECUTOR CAN APPEAL AND FORCE A DEBATE IN PLENARY

In 10 pages, the majority of the Holidays Chamber has dismissed their arguments, considering 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 question again 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 resolution adopted this Wednesday can be appealed by the TC Prosecutor's Office within a period of three days. According to what the sources consulted by this news agency have specified, said appeal can be referred to the plenary session with a progressive majority.

PARTICULAR DISCREPANT VOTE

On the sidelines, 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 this sense, it is worth remembering that --unlike the Holiday Room, which has a conservative majority-- the Constitutional Plenary, since its last renewal last January, has a progressive majority.

In his private vote of two pages, Díez has insisted that the inadmissibility of this 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 the Plenary for their 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 that the decision of the investigating judge of the 'procés' in the Supreme Court, magistrate Pablo Llarena, to order the arrest of the independence leader since he agreed to prosecute him for the crimes of disobedience and aggravated embezzlement 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 he was initially investigating Puigdemont.

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 a 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.