TSJM will study whether Justice violated Rajoy's rights by processing a letter rogatory from Andorra

They gave course to that commission for the former president but not for other subjects investigated in the framework of 'Operation Catalonia'

The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has estimated that it must continue studying the procedure for fundamental rights presented by the former president of the Government Mariano Rajoy, understanding that his right to effective judicial protection could have been injured with the decision of the Ministry of Justice to process the international letter rogatory relating to him and which was requested by the Principality of Andorra within the framework of the investigation that is ongoing for 'Operation Catalonia'.

In an order of the Sixth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TSJM, collected by Europa Press, it is indicated that this right could have been injured because with respect to Rajoy the rogatory commission is processed while "with respect to other subjects in relation to the same procedure and investigation, it would have been agreed to recognize his diplomatic protection".

This decision comes after the Prosecutor's Office considered at the end of September that "the right of defense and constitutional principles" of the former president had been violated when processing that commission.

Thus, it endorsed the argument of Rajoy's representation, which considered that the Investigating Court 32 of Madrid did not carry out the "prior control of legality in accordance with national and conventional legislation on international cooperation" when processing the aforementioned request.

In this regard, the former president denounced that the request had been carried out "automatically", which prevented the "possibility of appeal and intervention by the affected party", thus violating their rights.

But, in addition, Rajoy's defense alluded to a possible lack of jurisdiction of the Andorran justice for the facts that are the subject of the complaint filed against his client.

It should be remembered that the justice of the Principality is investigating him together with his former Ministers of Economy and Interior Cristóbal Montoro and Jorge Fernández Díaz for his alleged relationship with the attempts to discover "through illegal means" secret banking information of the former presidents of the Generalitat Jordi Pujol and Artur More, as well as former vice president Oriol Junqueras.

The facts denounced in the complaints are related to alleged extortion, coercion and blackmail since 2014 by agents of the National Police against officials of Banca Privada d'Andorra (BPA) to find out "through illegal means" secret banking information protected by Andorran legislation" of various rulers of Catalonia and their relatives, including Pujol, Mas and Junqueras.

THE STATE ADVOCACY

Now, the Chamber includes in its order the argument of both Rajoy and the State Attorney that indicates that a first appeal by the former president against that decision of Justice was rejected ex officio in October, stating that this act could not be challenged, that there was a lack of legitimacy, that a special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights was used, and that there was a lack of jurisdiction.

In addition, in a subsequent letter in which he defended that Rajoy's fundamental rights were not violated, the legal services of the State indicated that it was a matter of ordinary legality since it had to do with an "automatism" by which the Administration gives proceeding to a request for international judicial assistance.

Now, the court, after collecting in the order the position of both the Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney's Office and Rajoy's defense, indicates that the former president focuses his claims on the injuries of effective judicial protection and the principle of equality. And he considers that the fact that his rogatory letter is issued and not that of others fits "within the scope and purpose of the special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights."

"For all of which (...) the Chamber agrees to dismiss the cause of inadmissibility" defended by the State Attorney, he indicates, adding that there is no appeal against this decision.