Judge Pablo Llarena raises a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the EU.
The instructor of the cause of the procés in the Supreme Court, Pablo Llarena, has finally chosen to ask for the involvement of European justice in the process of handover of former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont, once the Europarliament has lifted the immunity of the that he enjoyed as an MEP.
Hours after knowing the result of the vote of the European Parliament, Llarena has addressed the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), by submitting a preliminary question, to raise a series of doubts regarding how the law should be interpreted European in this case.
The ultimate objective of the Spanish magistrate is to obtain answers that help him decide his next steps, but also limit the possibilities for Belgium to reject the Euroorder for sedition and embezzlement issued against Puigdemont and the former councilors Toni Comin and Clara Ponsatí (in this case only for sedition).
The instructor of the cause of the procésargue that the interpretation of European law that the Belgian justice is applying in the decisions that have to do with the pro-independence leaders who fled to that country differ from that made by the Spanish courts, which is why they want the CJEU to set stable criteria for these cases .
The decision of the Belgian justice to reject the surrender of former counsel Lluís Puig has set off all the alarms in the Supreme Court and has precipitated the presentation of a preliminary question.
In the letter sent to the CJEU, Llarena raises nine specific questions. Some seek answers on how he should act as a judge who issues the euro order and others are aimed at specifying the role of the Belgian justice as executor of those orders and its possibilities of rejecting it.
Among the first ones, Llarena asks the CJEU if the norm that regulates Euro-orders enables the executing judicial authority, in this case Belgium, to reject the surrender of the claimed person “on the basis of grounds for denial provided for in its national law, but not considered as such in the Framework Decision ”.
This is one of the fundamental complaints of the Supreme Court instructor regarding the arguments used by Belgium to deny the surrender of former councilor Puig. In this same line,