The Supreme Court corrects its initial decision and admits the proceedings against the pardons of the 'process'

The change occurs after a change in the composition of the section in charge of analyzing the matter

MADRID, 24 May. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has corrected this Tuesday its initial decision to reject the appeals filed against the pardons of the 'procés', because it considered that the appellants -including PP, Vox and Ciudadanos- were not empowered to take this legal action for lacking a legitimate interest, and has decided to admit them now for processing, which implies that it will study them to rule on the merits of the matter.

The Fifth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TS has agreed by a majority of three votes against two to estimate the reversal appeals filed against the orders by which the same section rejected the contentious-administrative appeals filed against the Royal Decrees for which nine of those convicted in the 'procés' case were pardoned.

The Third Chamber has estimated all the resources except the one filed by the entity Pro Patrimonium Sijena and Jerusalem, which is unanimously rejected, as reported by the high court.

However, the Supreme Court orders the continuation of the proceedings and postpones the ruling on the lack of legitimacy of the appellants raised by the State Attorney's Office in all appeals to the sentencing process.

In this way, the Fifth Section amends the decision it adopted last January when, by three votes to two, it rejected the seven appeals filed against the pardons granted to the independence leaders who were convicted by the Criminal Chamber of the TS for the illegal referendum of 1-O, seeing a lack of legitimacy in all of them.

Then, the magistrates pointed out with respect to the political parties that the jurisprudence that declares that their active legitimacy "does not concur in general" is "overwhelming", except in those actions "that affect the sphere of their rights and legitimate interests", understanding that this was not the case.

Despite this refusal, the appellants insisted on also challenging in replacement, some resources that are now answered by the Fifth Section but with a different result.

It so happens that the five magistrates that make up that section of the Third Chamber have changed in this time. Two of the three judges who voted to reject the appeals --Segundo Ménendez and Ángeles Huet-- have passed to other sections, while the two who advocated admitting them, Fernando Román and Wenceslao Olea, have remained.

The legal sources consulted by Europa Press emphasize that the alteration of the composition of the Fifth Section is due to a predetermined issue that has to do with the normal functioning of the Third Chamber, clarifying that it is not due to any 'ad hoc' change.

The admission for processing that has been agreed this Tuesday means that the Contentious-Administrative Chamber will have to study the merits of the matter, although the same sources point out that it is possible that at the end of this process the same conclusion will be reached on the lack of legitimacy.