The ruling denies the violation of the fundamental rights of the ‘ex-president’, because as the person most responsible, he had to act according to the legal system
Two magistrates of the 11 who participated in the deliberations have been in favor of having upheld the appeal of the Catalan politician
The plenary session of the Constitutional Court has denied protection to the former president of the Generalitat Quim Torra against the rulings of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia and the Supreme Court, which sentenced him to 18 months of disqualification for a crime of disobedience for having refused, in March 2019, during the electoral campaign, to remove the yellow ribbons from the buildings dependent public of the Generalitat. The sentence has the dissenting private vote of two of the 11 magistrates that currently form the plenary session, Juan Antonio Xiol and Ramón Sáez Valcárcel.
tower appealed in defense of the sentence of disqualification that led him to lose the Catalan presidency for refusing to comply with the repeated requests of the Central Electoral Board to remove symbols and banners with slogans in support of those it considered political prisoners, despite being identifiable with a certain political option, which violated the principle of neutrality imposed on all public powers, and particularly required in electoral period.
The ruling, for which Judge Antonio Narváez was the rapporteur, carries out a detailed analysis of the appellant’s various allegations, to rule out the violation of the rights of the impartial judge, the ordinary judge predetermined by law, the defense and the presumption of innocence, as well as the right to equality. The ruling rules out raising preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, understanding that they are not necessary to resolve the amparo.
For the court, the appellant’s conduct could not be protected in the exercise of subjective rights, because in his capacity as president of the Generalitat, and head of the management of public buildings, His conduct was determined by the provisions of the legal system.
The sentence explains that the appellant was not sentenced for his ideas, opinions or statements, but for the breach of some requirements derived from an inappropriate use of public buildings, which must be at the service of general interests, not of one more or more group. less concrete or numerous people, to the exclusion of the rest. The display of partisan symbology, inasmuch as it could be identified with certain political options, violated the duty of neutrality and objectivity that, at all times, must be respected by the public powers, but especially during the electoral period, as a guarantee of the cleanliness of the process. democracy, and equality in elections.