The ERC leader alleges that the sentence for which he was pardoned is causing him irreparable damage by disqualifying him from public office
The president of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, has asked the Constitutional Court to suspend the effects of the ‘procés’ sentence, which imposed 13 years in prison, because although he was pardoned and was released from prison, he continues to serve a penalty of disqualification from holding public office, both as a member of the Parliament, as well as the Congress and the European Parliament. The petition is based on the order of the vice president of the General Court of the European Union that rejected the claim of the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont having his immunity temporarily restored, but at the same time declared suspended the Euroorders and the procedure that remains latent in the Supreme for when it is at the disposal of the Spanish justice.
Junqueras, whose appeal for protection against the sentence has yet to be resolved (together with those of Dolors Bassa and Joaquim Forn), argues that this failure is producing an “irreparable damage” to their fundamental rights and, depending on the provisions for the escaped ‘expresident’, he must be suspended on a precautionary basis. It argues that according to the TGUE, the procedure is so until the question raised by the Supreme Court itself is answered after the Belgian refusal to hand over the ‘ex-minister’ Lluís Puig.
The four-page writing appeals to “loyal cooperation” that the TGUE itself claimed the Supreme Court in its resolution to recall that the suspensive effect of the arrest warrant “is not dissociated” from the main lawsuit and “It implies giving useful effect to the rules interpreted by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union“About Junqueras himself. Above all, he adds, when it was the Supreme Court himself who raised his doubts about the scope of parliamentary immunity before European justice and should know that this necessarily affected the main lawsuit.
The Spanish high court, on the other hand, maintains that the preliminary ruling it referred to the Court of Justice of the EU only referred to the Belgian claim, because the need for the consultation originated from the reason why the justice of that country rejected handing over Puig: doubting the Supreme Court’s competence to judge him.