Luis B. García 20/02/2020
The defense of the president of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, has filed a new lawsuit before the EU General Court against the European Parliament, this time against the decision of the president of the chamber, David Sassoli, for not having protected his immunity before the CJEU ruling. Specifically, the appeal before the European court goes against the decision of the community leader to deny his request for protection of immunity filed on 10 December.
This lawsuit against the European Parliament (EP) joins the one filed last month against Sassoli’s decision to declare the Junqueras seat vacant following the ruling of the Supreme Court that rejected his MEP status for the condemnation of 1-O In that lawsuit, the restoration of their seat was requested as precautionary measures, but in ERC they indicate that they have not yet had an answer in this regard.
The defense points out that Junqueras was MEP thanks to the CJEU and the European Parliament in the period in which all requests for immunity protection were filed
The appeal released today refers exclusively to the fact that the petition for protection of immunity filed by ERC MEP Diana Riba on December 10 was denied. That request was rejected despite complying with all the requirements, also the formal ones, to be attended, according to Junqueras lawyers.
Junqueras defends that by virtue of the ruling of the CJEU (which took place nine days after the contested act), he was MEP when the decision he now denounces occurred. Among other issues, he considers that several articles of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament have been violated, in particular due to “incompetence” of the president of the chamber “to decide” on the admission of the immunity protection petition and “for not following the procedure established in them ”.
“The composition of the European Parliament has been altered and remains altered to date as far as Oriol Junqueras is concerned”
The defense alleges that “the composition of the European Parliament has been altered and remains altered to date as far as Oriol Junqueras is concerned” and that “whenever a petition for protection of his immunity was filed, Junqueras was MEP and was in a situation of provisional imprisonment ”. That is why the lawyers of the Republican leader claim that the European Parliament “never did anything until it recognized, at the same time (at the same time), the status of Junqueras MEP and the vacancy of the seat.”
The defense points out that Junqueras was MEP thanks to the CJEU and the European Parliament in the period in which all requests for immunity protection were filed, so the European Parliament’s decision not to meet the demand for immunity protection is a violation of the fundamental rights of the republican prisoner.
Junqueras accuses Sassoli of not attending the emergency procedure of appeal filed
In the appeal, Sassoli is accused of not attending the emergency procedure of appeal filed by Diana Riba, and remind him that the Supreme Court “never made any request to lift the immunity of Junqueras while he was in prison provisional “, therefore,” his immunity and his rights were manifestly violated. “
But they also recriminate to the president of the European Parliament his “incompetence to decide on the admission or inadmissibility of the petition for protection of immunity”, together with the fact that he did not follow the procedure established in the Regulation of the European Parliament. In this regard, the defense alleges that Sassoli had to announce to the Plenary of the chamber the presentation of the Junqueras immunity protection petition and forward the petition to the competent committee (the JURI Committee), but “did not do either. “
In this way, Junqueras has never received a reasoned decision to his immunity protection requests, and neither he nor his representatives were heard in any of the immunity protection requests presented, nor by the president of the European Parliament, nor by the competent committee.
And the defense understands that the regulation of the EP, the fundamental rights, the Protocol 7 of Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and the European Electoral Act “confer to the MEPs, at least, the right to have their request for protection of immunity be processed ”and that“ the matter be submitted to the decision of the competent committee and the European Parliament ”. Also to have “a reasoned and reasoned decision” in this regard.
Furthermore, Junqueras claims that Sassoli does not cite any legal provision other than articles 7 and 9 of the EP Regulation to support its decision. “No legal report or any institutional or jurisprudential decision, so its decision is unmotivated and arbitrary,” they conclude.
Junqueras has never received a reasoned decision to his immunity protection requests
The appeal alleges as a first reason to support the claim that there is a right to protection of immunity of European scope independent of the national law of application. With it we want to show that the “legal status of immunity protection” of MEPs “cannot depend on the various national interpretations of immunity”, but must be “equal and non-discriminatory on grounds of nationality”.
The Supreme Court ruled in January this year to order the execution of the Junqueras disqualification. In his resolution, he agreed that it was not appropriate to release him, or authorize his displacement to the European Parliament or ask for his request to deprive him of his condition after the ruling of the CJEU, which ruled in favor of the former Catalan vice president when considering that he was MEP since the proclamation of the electoral results, and that he enjoyed, therefore, the immunity associated with the position.