Puigdemont believes that the CJEU leaves his delivery in a "siding" but assumes that there will be a new Euroorder

BRUSSELS, 31 Ene. (EUROPE PRESS

The former president of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont has defended this Tuesday that the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) - which agrees with Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena that Belgium cannot deny a European surrender order based on the risk that fundamental rights will be violated if he does not prove "systemic" deficiencies, he leaves his surrender process "via death", although he has assumed that the European ruling opens the door for a new Euro-warrant to be issued to demand his extradition.

"Today the CJEU ruling leaves extraditions in the dead end. It also places conditions on the presentation of new Euro-warrants, which in practice make them unfeasible," he assured in statements to the press in Brussels accompanied by his lawyer Gonzalo Boye and the rest of ex-ministers who fled, Lluis Puig and the MEPs Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí.

Regarding the possibilities that he will return to Spain, once the result of the other pending matter in the European Justice regarding his parliamentary immunity is known, a sentence that is expected this quarter, Puigdemont has avoided answering whether he would return immediately if the ruling is favourable: "When we see the sentence, we will decide".

"Since the first day I arrived here, I value the scenario of returning, of returning free, but not of returning to give myself up or surrender. I have always worked for that and today we are closer," he stressed.

In any case, both Puigdemont and his defense have assumed in their statements that after the clarifications of the CJEU in response to Llarena's preliminary ruling to limit the scope of the Euro-orders, new Euro-orders will be processed to request their delivery to Spain.

"The Euro-orders already come from the factory, rightly or wrongly there have always been Euro-orders," said Puigdemont, while Boye has counted on the Luxembourg pronouncement having "consequences" in the other ruling of the General Court of the EU that was awaits in the coming months the decision of the European Parliament to process the requests and suspend the immunities of Puigdemont, Comín and Ponsatí.

The ex-minister Puig, whose delivery Belgium has already refused in a decision that led Llarena to ask the European Justice and who does not have parliamentary immunity, has said, for his part, that he supposes that "obviously" there will be a new extradition request .

Regarding the 37-page sentence handed down this Tuesday by the Great Chamber of the CJEU, made up of fifteen judges, Puigdemont has interpreted that it "consolidates" arguments that his defense has claimed since the beginning of the 'Procés' that will allow him to defend "more solidly" that they are "political representatives persecuted for political reasons", something that "has no place" in European legal systems.

To do this, the pro-independence politician relies on the reference of the sentence to existing jurisprudence regarding the fact that a European Arrest and Surrender Order (OEDE) can be rejected by a judicial authority "if there is a real risk of violation" of the rights of the defendant due to "systemic or general deficiencies" in the functioning of the judicial system of the issuing Member State, because in its ruling the High Court considers that it should also be considered whether the risk may also affect "the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which the interested party belongs".

In any case, the CJEU also refers to the principles of trust and mutual recognition between the Member States "constitute the cornerstone" of the system of judicial cooperation that frames the Euro-orders, while stressing the "capital importance" of the fundamental right to a fair trial.

Regarding the violation of fundamental rights of the defendants and the risk that they do not have a fair process if they are handed over, the European Court warns that the "systemic and generalized" deficiencies that are reported must be demonstrated.

The Jurisprudence of the court based in Luxembourg already provides for an examination in two phases for this, the sentence points out, which involves the authority in charge of deciding on the Euroorder first examining "if there is a real risk of violation of that fundamental right due to systemic or widespread deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system of the issuing Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which the person concerned belongs".

In the second part of the examination, he must "specifically and precisely" assess whether there are "serious and well-founded" reasons to believe that said person will be at risk "taking into account the individual situation of that person, the nature of the offense and the factual context".

In this context, the European Court also limits the weight of the reports of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (GTDA), expert advisors to the United Nations, and warns that a person claimed cannot allege the risk of being prosecuted by a court devoid of competence based on an analysis of the GTDA "that does not refer directly to the situation of that person".

A report that does not refer to the specific case of the person "cannot justify by itself" the refusal to execute a Eurowarrant but can be "taken into account, among other elements, for the purpose of assessing the existence of systemic or generalized deficiencies ".

The conclusions of the General Advocate of the CJEU on this matter on July 14 argued that in order to deny a Eurowarrant due to risk to the fundamental rights of the defendant, the judicial authority must demonstrate with "objective, reliable, precise and duly updated data, the existence of a real risk" due to "systemic or widespread" deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system of the issuing Member State.

It should also be remembered that during the hearing held in Luxembourg on this matter, the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, certified that there is no systemic problem for the rule of law in Spain.