The CJEU responds today to Llarena's preliminary ruling on the scope of Euro-orders

Two years after Belgium denied to Spain the handover of the former Minister of Culture Lluís Puig (Junts), the European justice resolves today the preliminary rulings that the examining magistrate of the case of the process raised in the Supreme Court, Pablo Llarena, in relation to to Euroorders.

Thomas Osborne
Thomas Osborne
30 January 2023 Monday 21:37
124 Reads
The CJEU responds today to Llarena's preliminary ruling on the scope of Euro-orders

Two years after Belgium denied to Spain the handover of the former Minister of Culture Lluís Puig (Junts), the European justice resolves today the preliminary rulings that the examining magistrate of the case of the process raised in the Supreme Court, Pablo Llarena, in relation to to Euroorders.

The key unknowns that must be resolved by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), based in Luxembourg, are about the ability of the States of the European Union (EU) to deny an arrest and surrender order and enter to do according to what assessments of compliance with fundamental rights, as well as whether it is possible to present a new Euro-warrant, -it would be the fourth- to try to achieve Puig's extradition.

The Belgian justice rejected the delivery of Puig to Spain considering that the Supreme Court was not the competent body to try the ex-minister for a crime of embezzlement, and began to assess aspects such as the fact that fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence were not guaranteed.

What is decided in this case will also be decisive for the future of Carles Puigdemont, who in the spring will hear the sentence of the European instances on his immunity.

The report of the General Advocate of the European Union, Richard de la Tour, was a jug of cold water for the interests of Puig – who, if they prove him right, would still not be able to return to Spain. In his conclusions, he pointed out that the Belgian justice system overreached its functions, and aligned itself with Llarena's thesis on the resolution and scope of the Euro-orders. De la Tour pointed out that "the principle of mutual trust" between States is "of capital importance", and asserted that the court receiving the Euroorder should only thoroughly check the "risk" of fundamental rights being violated if there are "systemic deficiencies or widespread” in the judicial system of the requesting country.

The usual thing is that the figure of the General Advocate goes along the same lines as the CJEU, although Puig's lawyers trust that in this case it will be different. The decision is adopted without individual votes by fifteen magistrates and, therefore, the defense sources consulted point out that it is very difficult for any of the two parties to be fully justified. These sources also point out that the decision taken by the Luxembourg magistrates will be made with the EU as a whole in mind, not only in the case of Spain.

Puig's defense is now being handled by Miquel Sàmper, former interior minister, but throughout the previous process he was defended by Gonzalo Boye.

On the other hand, Sàmper has asked the Supreme Court to withdraw the crime of embezzlement from Puig in an appeal since the only expense for which he is persecuted, as stated in the final judgment of the process, was not paid. These are the invoices of the Unipost company, which had to print envelopes and ballots for the 1-O referendum. If the crime of embezzlement falls, only disobedience would weigh against him, which is not punishable by prison terms. Other leaders prosecuted solely for disobedience have already returned to Spain and Puig, if necessary, could follow that path.