The European Justice opens the way for the extradition of the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given the reason to the magistrate Pablo Llarena before Belgium’s refusal to hand over Lluís Puig. Although the court resolves only on the situation of the ex-minister, his support for the Euro-order of the Supreme Court opens the door for the former Catalan president to be handed over to judge him for the ‘procés’.
After knowing the ruling of the European Justice, the lawyer for the former president and former ministers Clara Ponsatí and Lluís Puig, Gonzalo Boye, has expressed that “today is a good day”. “The judgments of the CJUE are to be read in their entirety”, has assured the lawyer in a message on social networks. In his opinion, the ruling is not entirely favorable to the interests of the Supreme Court and it would give air to Belgium if it could delay the delivery based on the alleged violation of rights.
However, first of all, European Justice makes it clear that “an executing judicial authority can not refuse to execute a European arrest warrant based on the lack of jurisdiction of the court”. This is a statement very similar to that of the EU Advocate General who last July questioned that Belgium refused to execute the Eurowarrant on Puig based on a hypothetical risk of violation of their rights.
The CJEU now responds that a judicial authority (in this case Belgium) does not have the power to refuse to execute a delivery to another Member State based on hypothetical futures. “If it were so, the Framework Decision would not be applied uniformly and Member States would be free to determine the scope of the obligation to execute the ODE“, answer back.
blow to belgium
The court emphasizes that a negative decision -as occurred with Puig and Puigdemont- must have “exceptional character”. In other words, the extradition of a person claimed by an EU country can be denied when it is expected that, if it were admitted, a fundamental right of the person in question would be violated. But the CJEU does not see that this is the case of Lluís Puig.
However, the ruling is not clear-cut in this sense, since it opens the door for Belgium applies “a national provision” that allows him to reject the delivery of Puig again as long as it is proven that his rights would be violated in Spain.
It should be remembered that Belgium denied its delivery in January 2021 for the crime of embezzlement, invoking an alleged violation of Puig’s rights once he was handed over to the Supreme Court. In addition, he also questioned the jurisdiction of the high court in the matter; a note the latter that was highly applauded in the independence sphere. This sector has always defended that the competent body to prosecute the process would be the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia.
Precisely on this point the CJUE also pronounces this Tuesday. It maintains that in the processing of a Eurowarrant the country executing the delivery cannot verify whether it has been issued by a competent judicial authority. It is the other way around, the review must be carried out when it is the extradited person who denounces that your rights will be violated because he is going to be prosecuted by a body that is not competent.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme
So in that case, the matter would be studied and it would be denied as long as it was seen that the court that has to judge him, in this case the Supreme Court, is not competent to do so. Specifically, what the European Justice says is that Belgium must determine whether there are reliable elements that demonstrate that their rights are violated due to “systemic deficiencies” that affect “an objectively identifiable group of people”.
However, the CJEU gives Llarena a free hand to issue new Euro-orders if he considers it so. In this regard, he maintains that multiple delivery requests can be issued even after the State to which it is addressed has refused to execute the previous ones, as has been the case. Of course, the ODE must not give rise to a violation of rights and that its issuance must have “provided character”.
Llarena appealed to the European Justice after Belgium denied the handover of Lluís Puig. Although the matter relating to the former Catalan minister has now been resolved, the decision of the CJEU has direct effects on Puigdemont, since he is on the run from Justice and his surrender was also denied by said country. The Supreme Court left the Euro-orders deadlocked and asked the CJEU if Belgium had power to breach them arguing hypothetical violation of rights and questioning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Puigdemont’s immunity
The favorable response now from the CJEU opens the door for Llarena reactivate the Euroorder again as far as Puig is concerned. However, Europe still has to decide on Puigdemont’s immunity in his capacity as a member of the European Parliament.
In this case, it is the General Court of the European Union (TGUE) that has to resolve the appeals of the fugitive politicians regarding their immunity, so the delivery of the former Catalan president is still unclear. Especially because, if it were unfavorable for him, there is still possibility of appealwhich in terms implies delaying the final response for more months.
In addition, the process is also influenced by the latest changes to the Penal Code promoted by the Government. At this time, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court is studying how to fit the proven facts of the process after the repeal of sedition and the reduction of embezzlement. The Prosecutor’s Office proposes replacing sedition with the new figure of aggravated public disorder and maintaining the aggravated embezzlement.
In the case of the parallel drift of the process, the one that affects Puigdemont, there will also be changes due to the legal reform. The direct consequence of the reform was that Llarena, unlike the Prosecutor’s Office, did not replace sedition with disorder, but with disobedience. In the same way, he maintained the aggravated embezzlement from Puigdemont. He dropped the Eurowarrants and launched new national warrants with these new offences.
If he also acted abroad, he would have to do so in accordance with the new wording of the Penal Code. Still, the fact that he keeps the embezzlement in its aggravated modality makes Puigdemont’s procedural future difficult as he maintains equally high jail and disqualification forks. The Executive, with its reform agreed with ERC, sought to reduce the penalty for embezzlement to a minimum, but the criteria maintained by the Supreme Court on the money diverted for 1-O makes the outlook difficult for both those convicted and those on the run, such as the Puigdemont case.
