The 6 keys to the British pulse between King Juan Carlos and Corinna

From the Spanish taboo of the king’s immunity to the open grave debate in an English court

When last Thursday, December 2, EL PERIÓDICO anticipated that the High Court of Justice of England and Wales in the Royal Courts of Justice, in the London borough City of Westminster, had scheduled a hearing for 6 and 7 December in order to address the previous issue of sovereign immunity invoked by Juan Carlos I before the civil lawsuit of his ex-lover Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein Due to harassment, illegal monitoring and defamation, the data was sufficient to know the scope of a story that, due to its relevance, the other media and agencies would have to follow.

Because, for the first time, exceptionally, the constitutional inviolability of the King of Spain in his capacity as head of state, a taboo subject for Spanish institutions, would be challenged in a foreign court.

The Spanish justice system had successfully questioned the extradition demand in 1998 – in the so-called Chancery Division– and the rejection of the immunity of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet Ugarte in the judicial committee of the House of Lords, following his arrest in London in compliance with an international arrest warrant for crimes of torture, among others, issued by the judge Baltasar Garzón.

And now, 23 years later, Juan Carlos I he relies – without the intervention of Spain in court – in the presumed immunity that he enjoyed in his time as king and head of state, as well as in the present, after his abdication in June 2014, as king emeritus and former head of state, to reject the civil claim of his former lover before the Queen’s Bench Division of the aforementioned court.

After long hours of argumentation in two morning and afternoon sessions, on Monday 6 and Tuesday 7 December, the judge Matthew Nicklin (50 years old, specialist in defamation and head of the Media section of the court) will issue in the coming weeks, foreseeably already in the month of January, a resolution on the immunity of Juan Carlos I.

There are 6 keys to the legal-political debate in the High Court of England and Wales that must be taken into account.

Lawyer Daniel Bethlehem, featured by the Clifford Chance law firm, tries to fit the immunity of Juan Carlos I into the state immunity law 1978 of the United Kingdom, through an approach of absolute immunity from jurisdiction.

According to it, Juan Carlos I denies having committed the acts of which he is accused in the civil lawsuit: ordering the general Felix Sanz Roldan, then director of the CNI, the mission to travel to London and meet on May 5, 2012 with Corinna in her room at the The Connaught Hotel From london. But, at the same time, he warns: “The English court lacks jurisdiction over acts promoted by Juan Carlos I in his official role as Head of State. This is so regardless of whether said conduct, as alleged, has been an offense. abuse of power or for your personal gratification. “

Corinna’s lawyers dispute this immunity because Juan Carlos I cannot have among his official duties to harass, order illegal follow-ups or defame.

The statement of Juan Carlos I’s lawyer should make us reflect on article 56.3 of the Spanish constitution, according to which, “the person of the King is inviolable and is not subject to responsibility. His acts will always be endorsed in the manner established in article 64, lacking validity without said referendum & mldr;”.

Inviolable and irresponsible. The first word protects the conduct of the King as a person; the second refers to their actions. These acts, according to article 64, must be countersigned by the Prime Minister, the ministers and the President of Congress. That is to say: according to article 64.2 of the Constitution, “the people who endorse them will be responsible for the acts of the King.”

And what about private acts in which its official function is not exercised? This does not enter the ‘Title II. Of the Crown ‘, article 56, where the Spanish Constitution establishes the inviolability and irresponsibility of the monarch.

Already in September 1978, during the constitutional debate, the professor of Criminal Law Enrique Gimbernat He warned: “Anticipating the royal irresponsibility and not foreseeing its criminal prosecution by the Supreme Court in plenary session, prior authorization of the Congress, the draft refuses to face the uncomfortable possibility of a rogue monarch, for which a regulation could be established that would enshrine the impunity of a murderous or rapist monarch and who could not even be removed from office if he commits a crime. “

For its part, Oscar Alzaga, Professor of Constitutional and Political Law, had already pointed out in July 1978: “It is obvious that, in a contemporary parliamentary monarchy, the hypothesis that the king commits a crime It should not be provided for in the Constitution, and if the extremely unlikely event were to come true, we would find ourselves facing the loss of prestige and, therefore, the decline of the monarchical institution “.

According to his lawyers, Juan Carlos I it is immune in two ways. “While he was head of state and as sovereign, member of the current family of the King [Felipe VI] and your House. This immunity covers the public and private acts of the person. Given the status of the sovereign and high members of the Royal Family, in a monarchy like that of the United Kingdom (and Spain), there can be no doubt that His Majesty [Juan Carlos I] presumably falls within the framework of ‘The State’ “.

Corinna’s lawyers denounce that the defendant tries to use two terms that have an impact in England due to the weight of the monarchical institution: Sovereign (Sovereign) and House (Household).

This sleight of hand introduces Juan Carlos I as a member of the Royal Family and, at the same time, hints that he is part of the House of His Majesty the King when it is not. Juan Carlos I’s lawyers have not even been able to provide, as required by English law, a certification of his royal status.

In their reply, Corinna’s lawyers point out that there is only one sovereign Spain: Felipe VI. The sovereign is, they emphasize, the Head of State.

Judge Nicklin must decide if Juan Carlos I owns the absolute state immunity that he invokes until his abdication, and if the acts of a private nature that are imputed to him while he was king are covered by that immunity. And, in addition, he has to settle the debate on whether, after his abdication, he maintains that immunity in his capacity as king emeritus or former head of state.

Grant the absolute immunity As head of state and former head of state, affirming that his private acts were part of his official duties implies rejecting Corinna’s demand. If, instead, the judge chooses to only recognize immunity for the time when Juan Carlos I was head of state, this would allow the lawsuit to go ahead for those acts of alleged harassment, illegal monitoring and defamation after June 2014 that last until 2020.

If the lawsuit defeats absolute immunity, do you go immediately to an extensive list of evidence and witnesses What are Corinna’s lawyers proposing? No. Because there are other preliminary questions.

One of them is the way in which the plaintiff’s lawyers communicated the lawsuit to Juan Carlos I. In December 2020, the lawsuit was sent by WhatsApp to Juan Carlos I’s mobile phone, who received it in Abu Dhabi. It was also suggested that Clifford Chance be sent to his lawyers in London, but, according to the plaintiffs, he rejected these proposals, noting that the Zarzuela Palace It was his residence since 1962 and he had “moved to Abu Dhabi” in 2020.

The lawyers of Juan Carlos I object to this communication for being “defective”, because, they say, the lawsuit should have been sent through diplomatic channels and, first, request permission from the justice given the status of former head of state of his client.

From the Spanish taboo of the king’s immunity to the open grave debate in an English court

Leave a Comment Cancel reply