Legal and judicial Spanish meet in a small committee at UB to break the amnesty

Helena TorugaThe professor of international law took the baton and delivered the speech in the following order: Rafael Arenasprofessor of private law, former president of Societat Civil Catalana and former candidate for citizens; Ignacio Ulloa, former lawyer of the Transitional Committee, former Secretary of State for Security Affairs with Jorge Fernández Díaz and former judge of the TGUE; I Jaime LozanoVice-President of the Bench and Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha.

Arenas presented a thesis on the rule of law and the dominant role of the Spanish Constitutional Court, taking into account possible conflicts with the executive and legislative branches. “The system is not concrete. It is made of cards that can collapse with one blow,” he warned. “Strict legal reasoning is the only thing that legitimizes us before society,” he added.

Ulloa then collected testimonies to explain the characteristics and workings of unconstitutionality cases in the Constitutional Court and harmful cases in the European Court of Justice. He defined the latter as “an extremely powerful tool for controlling national systems,” before saying that in the case of pardons “they are raised because justice must be done and not because judges have a conflict with another authority.”

“The law will be repealed.”

Lozano strongly criticized the discussion and text of the amnesty law. “It's all very Byzantine. The level leaves a lot to be desired, he said, before saying he has no doubt that the European Court of Justice will overturn the law. “It's a way of talking, we already understand each other. He cannot do this, but he will declare that it is in violation of Union law.” Some words that really pleased the audience. “God is listening,” attorneys Foster Fabra and Caboz said to each other.

The bench recommended that judges submit pre-judicial questions to the European Court of Justice, above those on unconstitutionality to the Constitutional Court, because it would be more “ready” to assess the true intent of the law, the judge said. In this sense, he denied that they were promoting mistrust with the Electoral Commission – which now enjoyed a close majority with the Socialist Workers Party – but insisted that Luxembourg preferred to appreciate the “deviation of power”.

Lozano continued, “Judges are subject to the empire of law, and the European judge is the first,” stressing that the text of the law was particularly provocative in mentioning embezzlement and terrorism. In his opinion, it is subject to direct consultation with the European Court of Justice because of its conflict with the European Directives on combating fraud affecting the interests of the Union (2017/1317) and on combating terrorism (2017/541).

Lozano also noted that possible reasons for consultation with the ECJ were the lack of protection for EU territory – with a risk to freedom of movement and settlement rights -; Violating the rule of law, the principle of equality and effective judicial protection. Now, according to the judge, Article 4 of the Amnesty Law is what will make him “end up in the trash.”

It is this section that orders the lifting of all precautionary measures, including arrest warrants, even if appeals or questions of unconstitutionality are raised. He added, “They are preparing to avoid this, but there is suspicion that this article conflicts with European law, and therefore a preliminary trial must be conducted,” recalling that the article was specifically designed for the return of… Carles Puigdemont.

A minute of glory for Foster Fabra

After Lozano's intervention, Professor Toruga began the conversation with the audience. Among those who asked to speak was attorney Foster Fabra, who described the amnesty law as surreal and surprising. “I wrote an article published today about what is happening with the amnesty law, but I was unable to sign it neither as a lawyer, nor as a professor, nor as a doctor of law. I signed it as the Minister of Tiberias. It is illusory. I have a feeling that the political masters are sitting down to negotiate outside of any legal meaning.” “.

Then, after using a football metaphor – the law is like allowing a player to use his hands in a football match – he said the European Court of Justice would not accept the law. “It is impossible.” From this standpoint, the lawyer thanked the platform’s work for preparing the guide and making it accessible to everyone. “I am on the front lines in actions that I think are important regarding the application of the amnesty law. I want to think that the judges will raise pre-judicial questions. I am convinced that they will do that, and if they do not do that we will call on them to do so.”

“Catalonia is Spain”

Villegas ended the session, but instead of reading a few words, he made a political claim against independence and amnesty. “I am happy to be here, in Barcelona, ​​the capital of Catalonia, a region of Spain. “Catalonia is Spain,” he added, before warning: “Those who stand outside the law will have the full weight of the law on them.” “The law is a sword, but it is not a metaphorical sword.”

The judge said that the amnesty issued in 1977 came as a result of the regime change in the Spanish state, which transformed from dictatorship to democracy. But in his opinion, the current amnesty is justified only by desires Pedro Sanchez To continue in government, even if he was making an agreement “with those who want to break the unity of Spain.” “The pro-independence people are at least coming forward face to face. The problem is the cowards who are demonstrating,” he continued.

Finally, regarding the program manual, he said that they did not want to induce judges to act against amnesty, but simply provide them with a legal instrument so that they could act “with complete independence.” Having said that, he said the Spanish government was afraid of possible preliminary questions at the European Court of Justice: “It's out of control. The puppet strings don't get there.”