The defense of Juan Carlos I sells to the court that in Spain a head of state and a sovereign coexist, by Ernesto Ekaizer

The itinerary traveled through the civil lawsuit for defamation Presented by Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein against Juan Carlos I Before the British courts, as has been shown, it was devious from the start. It was presented to the High Court of Justice on December 29, 2020. And the lawyers for the first one sent it to the King Emeritus at the only address available to them: the Zarzuela Palace. There, the receipt of the 32-page document was acknowledged. But Juan Carlos I did not reside in the Zarzuela. Since August 3, 2020, he had been living in self-exile – there was no criminal case against him – in Abu Dhabi.

On the advice of his lawyers, Juan Carlos did not want to take over the lawsuit, until the document was finally accepted. As in English courts everything must be black on white, the plaintiff’s lawyers asked for a opinion to the lawyer José Antonio Choclán to clarify this point to the judge. Indeed, the only reference that was then had was the Palacio de la Zarzuela and, according to its opinion, the service performed is fully valid.

The defense of the emeritus king has protested because it qualifies as “faulty” e “invalid“the chosen route. Because it had to be done, they argue, diplomatic channels. And because, they argue, it should have been subjected to prior “judicial scrutiny and probably [hubiera sido] rejected. “Hindsight riddle.

The defense has promised the judge a sworn statement from Juan Carlos I on this “inadequate” delivery service of the claim at a special hearing.

The defense trick

In his brief exposing sovereign and state immunity, the team of lawyers formed by Daniel Behtlehem – tanned in the advice of the Israeli governments of Ariel Sharon and Binyamin Netanyahu, whom he has defended at the International Court of Justice in The Hague – and Philippa Webb – Professor of International Law at King’s College London – attempts a trick Interestingly, it does not seem, according to legal sources in London, that Judge Matthew Nicklin is going to swallow it.

To fit the immunity of Juan Carlos I into the English law of state immunity, which refers to a “sovereign or other head of state”, presents the emeritus as “sovereign” in parallel to the “head of state” of Spain, his son Felipe VI.

The prior presentation of the briefs between the parties – the so-called ‘skeletons’ that collect the arguments – offers advantages to detect black pudding. Like the following. In his defense of the existence in Spain of the “sovereign” Juan Carlos I, his lawyers misquote a section of the English state immunity law when referring to the “sovereign or other head of that state.”

James Lewis, Corinna’s attorney, delicately points out at the foot of his brief that Juan Carlos’s lawyers incorrectly quote the section of the law as “a sovereign or other chief of that State “, when it comes to” a sovereign or other head of state. “The demonstrative would allow the existence of a Spanish state in which there could be a” sovereign “and” a head of state “.

“Given that we share that Juan Carlos I is not head of state, it is surprising that the defendants ask the court to establish that he continues to be, despite his abdication, a sovereign of Spain with King Felipe VI. It seems that Juan Carlos I considers it possible to construct the words “sovereign” and “head of state” alternately and give “sovereign” a meaning that he cannot bear. From a legal point of view, a “sovereign” must be a head of state, “the plaintiffs point out.

In their writing, Lewis and his colleagues warned that Juan Carlos I had not provided testimony from Felipe VI or on his part to the effect that the emeritus is part of the Royal Household or that Spain asserts his immunity despite the fact that this it had been requested in the previous exchange between the parties in dispute.

Clarification from Spain

Judge Nicklin took note of that detail. And this Monday he stated, during the Behtlehem presentation, in one of his few speeches that, indeed, it would be desirable for Spain to clarify that point.

Related news

The defense of Juan Carlos I warned that in the situation created if the immunity of his client is rejected and the lawsuit continues its course, no senior official in Spain will give a statement or provide evidence because those officials would enjoy ” immunity to present evidenceAccording to the lawyers, “this would have consequences for His Majesty’s ability to exercise an adequate defense.” From this it follows that Juan Carlos I will not give a statement if he is summoned, as it seems, before the High Court of Justice. Problem : these officials, if Spain waives that immunity, they can appear.

Corinna’s attorneys have filed the lawsuit with multiple pieces of evidence. One of them is the sworn statement of former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, who assures that some 120 agents of the National Intelligence Center are assigned to what are called incidents with the monarchy and that Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein is fully controlled by a team from the CNI.