November 27, 2022

Non-partisan and pluralist communication and debate platform

Home » Content » The Supreme Court dismisses appeals against pardons for those convicted of the ‘procés’ case of Catalonia
MEASURE OF GRACE. The Supreme Court has rejected the appeals against the pardons of the leaders of the procés. The Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings has upheld the previous allegation of the State Attorney's Office and has refused to enter into the merits of the case by considering that none of the appellants has legal standing to take legal action against the measure of grace granted by the Government. The Supreme Court's thesis is that political parties can challenge all acts that affect their rights and legitimate interests as a party, as established in article 19 of the law regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. However, the magistrates concluded that the parties do not have a general action to challenge any act or provision of political relevance. The appellants are Convivencia Cívica Catalana; the leaders of Ciudadanos Inés Arrimadas, Carlos Carrizosa and José María Espejo-Saavedra; the political party Vox; PP, deputies and former deputies of the Parliament of Catalonia of the PP Popular Alejandro Fernández, Santiago Rodríguez, Andrea Levy, Juan Bautista Milian and Lorena Roldán; the ex-delegate of the Government in Catalonia Enric Milló; and the association Pro Patrimonium Sijena and Jerusalem. Vox announces an appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Carlota Guindal, 20 January 2022

The seven prisoners who were in the centre of Lledoners on the day they left the prison after being pardoned by the Government – Àlex Garcia / Propias

MEASURE OF GRACE

The court agreed not to enter into the merits of the case due to the lack of legal standing of the appellants, among them several political parties.

Vox announces an appeal to the Constitutional Court

The Supreme Court has rejected the appeals against the pardons of the leaders of the procés. The Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings has upheld the previous allegation of the State Attorney’s Office and has refused to enter into the merits of the case by considering that none of the appellants has legal standing to take legal action against the measure of grace granted by the Government.

After several days of deliberation, the High Court concluded on Thursday by upholding the preliminary arguments put forward by the State Attorney’s Office. This means that the Chamber will not consider whether the Executive of Pedro Sánchez complied with the legal requirements for the granting of pardons to the nine people convicted of sedition, including the former vice-president of the Generalitat Oriol Junqueras.

The Chamber has decided by majority to uphold the aforementioned preliminary arguments in relation to the lack of legal standing in each and every one of the appeals filed.

The appellants are Convivencia Cívica Catalana; the leaders of Ciudadanos Inés Arrimadas, Carlos Carrizosa and José María Espejo-Saavedra; the political party Vox; PP, deputies and former deputies of the Parliament of Catalonia of the PP Popular Alejandro Fernández, Santiago Rodríguez, Andrea Levy, Juan Bautista Milian and Lorena Roldán; the ex-delegate of the Government in Catalonia Enric Milló; and the association Pro Patrimonium Sijena and Jerusalem.

The Contentious-Administrative Chamber has taken into account its restrictive doctrine on legal standing. Something similar happened recently with an appeal against the appointment of the state attorney general, Dolores Delgado.

The parties do not have carte blanche to appeal administrative acts.

In fact, court sources explain that they took this last resolution into account in order to reject the admission of the appeals.

In the case of Delgado, the court refused to enter into the substance of the suitability and legitimacy of the appointment, understanding that the parties of Pablo Casado and Santiago Abascal are not entitled to appeal Delgado’s name.

The Supreme Court’s thesis is that political parties can challenge all acts that affect their rights and legitimate interests as a party, as established in article 19 of the law regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. However, the magistrates concluded that the parties do not have a general action to challenge any act or provision of political relevance.

The main stumbling block in these deliberations was Vox’s standing. The doctrine of the Supreme Court is that political parties do not have standing in this type of appeal. However, Santiago Abascal’s party was a party to the criminal proceedings in which the pro-independence leaders were convicted, and consequently there was some doubt as to whether such a direct interest could exist, although in the end it was also rejected.

Vox announces an appeal to the Constitutional Court

In any case, Vox has announced this Thursday that it will appeal to the Constitutional Court against the Supreme Court’s decision. Abascal’s party considers that its situation is not the same as that of Ciudadanos and the PP, since Vox acted as a popular accusation in the process. “We will appeal to the Constitutional Court”, Vox’s secretary general in Congress, Macarena Olona, said on Twitter as soon as she heard of the Supreme Court’s decision.

https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20220120/8000671/supremo-inadmite-recursos-indultos.html

OpenKat

View all posts

Add comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *