The Prosecutor's Office appeals the decision of the Constitutional Court to reject Puigdemont's appeal against his national arrest warrant

He considers that the decision should not have been adopted by the conservative majority Holiday Chamber

The Prosecutor's Office of the Constitutional Court (TC) has already presented its appeal against 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 (TS).

In a letter signed on September 1, to which Europa Press has had access, the Public Ministry has requested that his appeal be upheld and that the order of inadmissibility issued on August 9 by the Vacation Chamber to the consider that it does not comply with the law.

In 14 pages, the prosecutor Pedro Crespo has not entered to assess whether said decision is "correct or incorrect, well-founded or ill-founded", but he has assured that "it has not been adopted either in time or by the body that, in accordance with the law ensure its constitutional legitimacy, or, what is the same, guarantee that such decision is the result of the legitimate exercise of constitutional jurisdiction".

"Given the absence of imminent risk, the Vacation Section therefore lacked the competence to decide on the admission or inadmissibility of the appeal for amparo. This should have followed the ordinary system of distribution and resolution of issues in force in the Constitutional Court", has indicated.

In this sense, it has stressed that the resolution of the Vacation Chamber "cannot be validated, nor even assessed in terms of its substance or its specific decision-making sense, but revoked for the sake of a correct interpretation and application, in the present case and in the future, of the norms that establish the conditions for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal".

In its brief, the Public Ministry has defended that there was no "real urgency" that would lead the Vacation Chamber to resolve the request to suspend the national arrest warrant that the Supreme Court issued for Puigdemont. As he has alleged, it was not a matter that required a resolution outside of the Constitutional Plenary which, it should be remembered, has a progressive majority, unlike the Holiday Room, which has a conservative majority.

The prosecutor has stressed that "it is undoubtedly possible that, in the end, the amparo appeal filed by Messrs. Puigdemont and Comín could end up being dismissed, or even inadmissible, and it is also possible that this Prosecutor's Office does not oppose it" . "But the transcendental importance that the rejection, if applicable, be agreed by the competent body for it results directly from the constitutional essence of the configuration, organization and operation of the constitutional jurisdiction," he added.

Thus, it has made it ugly that "two Magistrates of the Court" --"from the invocation of an incorrectly interpreted jurisdictional norm"-- have assumed and endorsed "a decision that, excluding that improper application of the norm, would correspond to another organic composition of the highest interpreter of the Constitution, including the Plenary itself, thus substituting their decision-making will".

The Prosecutor's Office has shown its opposition to the argument that the Vacation Chamber assumed jurisdiction over the matter because it had to decide on Puigdemont's request to apply - as a precautionary measure - the suspension of the national arrest warrant. As the prosecutor has stressed, "nothing is resolved in the appealed order regarding such a measure." "The concurrence of the legal requirements that would justify its adoption or rejection is not even studied or verified," he added.

THE CONSERVATIVES RESOLVED BY MAJORITY

The Public Ministry has thus appealed the decision of the Vacation Chamber, adopted 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 -, of rejecting Puigdemont's appeal.

According to the resolution of the Constitutional Court, collected by Europa Press, the former president of the Generalitat of Catalonia --and his former counselor Toni Comín-- claimed that they considered their rights to effective judicial protection, to an ordinary judge predetermined by law, and to a process with all the guarantees.

Both insisted that they have parliamentary immunity by holding a seat in the European Parliament, so they considered it "evident" that a national warrant for search, capture and imprisonment was "absolutely incompatible" with the immunity they enjoy, in addition to " manifestly disproportionate."

In 10 pages, the Chamber dismissed their arguments on the understanding that no fundamental right was 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 petition, lack constitutional support," the magistrates pointed out.

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

The car of the Vacation Room had the particular vote of Díez, who dissented from the majority. The magistrate assured that a decision that should not have been adopted in the Vacation Section had been "unnecessarily precipitated." In her opinion, the matter should be resolved in the Plenary of the TC.

Subsequently, in his dissenting opinion of two pages, Díez insisted that the inadmissibility of this appeal for protection "deviates, for the first time, from the practice followed by this court in relation to the protections presented in relation to special case 20907 -2017 --known as the cause of the 'procés'--, which have been systematically admitted and referred to the Plenary for its resolution".

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME

The inadmissibility of the amparo appeal confirmed the decision of the investigating judge of the 'procés' in the Supreme Court, Judge Pablo Llarena, to order the arrest of the independence leader if he steps into the national territory, since he agreed to prosecute him for the crimes of disobedience and embezzlement aggravated within the framework of the review 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 Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court endorsed Llarena's decision by rejecting the arguments of the defense - which 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.