The judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court Pablo Llarena, instructor of the ‘trial’ file, argued this Wednesday that accusing the superior court of going too far by not applying the amnesty law is telling. “through ignorance or crude legal training”.
“To say that the judiciary, in general, and the Supreme Court, in particular, exceeds its limits when interpreting the amnesty law, to decide whether or not it should apply to a specific person, cannot be said only through ignorance or rudimentary legal training,” Llarena said during a lecture he gave at the Royal Academy of Physicians of Spain.
Judge Llarena explains the TS’s interpretation of amnesty
The trial instructor explained the decisions adopted by the Supreme Court on the amnesty law before a hearing attended by the president of the Criminal Chamber, Manuel Marchena.
He focused in particular on High Court arguments to exclude embezzlement offense from amnesty committed by convicted former senior officials of the Catalan government and for which former president Carles Puigdemont, a fugitive from justice, is being prosecuted.
“Absolute predictability”
The interpretation made by the Supreme Court, declared the magistrate, This is due to the wording that the legislator gave to the law. of amnesty and was of “absolute objective foreseeability”, since it was interpreted “in accordance with the normal meaning of the words” and what the TS said “over 200 years of jurisprudence”.
Llarena stressed that, unlike other crimes included in the scope of the amnesty law (disobedience, public disturbances, attacks against agents of authority…), which are amnestied unconditionally, in case of embezzlement The legislator introduced an element which exempts amnesty when there was a “goal of enrichment”.
The same concrete law according to which enrichment must be understood as obtaining a “personal benefit of a patrimonial nature”.
“The etymological meaning of becoming rich is to have more: more money or more things. There is an increase in assets when one acquires things and approves payment to the Administration. By example,” he explained, “if I approve the expenses of my house on behalf of I have submissions to the court a financial advantage, because if I take care of these expenses, I have to pay a monetary sum. Likewise if I charge the Court with the travel of a group of judges to Luxembourg to visit the CJEU and I decide to do so of my own free will. “There is a personal benefit, shared with all the judges who enjoy the journey.”
Embezzlement
He added that, in the case of the “trial”, the expenses of the 1-O independence referendum were charged to the public treasury, held by the “simple will” of its organizers, without having powers, against the Constitution and the Statute. . Catalan and violating the prohibitions established by the Constitutional Court and the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia. “There was no collective benefit. There was a personal benefit, shared with other people, like during the judges’ trip.”
Llarena stressed that when it comes to embezzlement, The Supreme Court “has always given the same answer“It is a crime if the perpetrators steal public funds, acquire assets with public funds, or benefit from services charged with public funds.”
“The Supreme Court’s interpretation It’s so solid that I am not right to think that, in accordance with the criteria of the Constitutional Court, it will be possible to modify it,” declared the magistrate.
“I would not bet that the TC, in interpreting an ordinary law and using concepts of European Union law already defined by the CJEU, will reach a significantly different conclusion than the Supreme Court,” Llarena said. declared that it had not given “great effective scope” to possible amparo appeals that could be filed due to the non-application of the amnesty for embezzlement.
