**The report that will mark the European Court of Justice ruling concludes that Belgium must hand over the fugitive independence leaders if it does not demonstrate “systemic deficiencies” in the Spanish justice system.**
Belgium cannot question the competence of the Spanish Supreme Court to issue a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), and therefore cannot refuse to hand over the fugitives of the procés for possible violation of fundamental rights if it does not previously demonstrate the existence of “systemic deficiencies” in the Spanish justice system. This is the conclusion of EU Advocate General Richard de la Tour to the questions posed by Supreme Court magistrate Pablo Llarena and which directly affect the case of former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and the other members of his government who fled with him to Belgium. The response of the Advocate General agrees with the Spanish court, which considered that the interpretation of European law being applied by the Belgian justice system in the decisions that have to do with the pro-independence leaders who have fled to that country disagrees with that made by the Spanish courts and with that contained in the framework decision that regulates the European arrest warrants. “The Framework Decision does not allow an executing judicial authority to review whether an issuing judicial authority has jurisdiction under the law of the issuing Member State to issue an EAW,” the Advocate General points out.
The decision of the Belgian judiciary to refuse the surrender of former minister Lluís Puig in February 2021 set off alarm bells in the Supreme Court and precipitated the submission of a preliminary ruling. Although the brief was based on Belgium’s reasons for not handing over Puig (prosecuted for embezzlement and disobedience), Llarena’s ultimate objective was to limit Belgium’s possibilities of rejecting the European arrest warrant for sedition and embezzlement issued against Puigdemont and the former ministers Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí (the latter only for sedition). The opinion of the Advocate General is not binding, but it usually coincides with the rulings issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which in the coming months will give the definitive answers to the Spanish magistrate’s questions.
In the letter sent to the CJEU, Llarena posed nine questions. Some sought answers on how he should act as the judge issuing the European arrest warrant and others were aimed at specifying the role of the Belgian justice system as the executor of these arrest warrants and its possibilities of rejecting them. One of the reasons given by Belgium in refusing to hand over Puig was that the Supreme Court, in its opinion, did not have jurisdiction to try the former minister, but that it should be the courts of Catalonia that should do so. Llarena disagrees with this argument and asked the European court whether the Belgian justice system “can question the competence” of the Supreme Court in this case and reject the surrender on the grounds that it is not competent to issue the European arrest warrant. The response of the Advocate General supports the thesis of the Spanish magistrate. De la Tour argues that no country can control whether the judge who issues a European arrest warrant is competent to try the case. “To authorise such a check would contravene the principle of procedural autonomy, according to which Member States may designate in their national law the judicial authority competent to issue EAWs, and the principle of mutual recognition, the ‘cornerstone’ of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, according to which the execution of the EAW is the rule, while refusal of execution is conceived as an exception which must be subject to strict interpretation”, the Advocate General recalls.
By refusing Puig’s surrender, and throughout the process of processing the EAWs, the Belgian judiciary has questioned whether Spain will respect the fundamental rights of the fugitive pro-independence leaders. The Advocate General warns, however, that the execution of an EAW cannot be refused when there is no information available to demonstrate, “by means of an overall assessment based on objective, reliable, precise and duly updated data”, the existence of a real risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial before a judge previously established by law, a right guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. To do so, Belgium would have to demonstrate “systemic or generalised deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system” in Spain, says De la Tour, who recalls that, where such deficiencies do not exist, the executing judicial authority cannot doubt that the person concerned will be able to obtain a declaration and, if necessary, correct or sanction a possible infringement of that fundamental right by means of appeals in different instances, including the Constitutional Court. Both Puigdemont and the defendants who remained in Spain and who have already been tried and convicted by the Supreme Court have appealed to the Court of Guarantees, which has backed the Supreme Court’s thesis in all cases. For De la Tour, an “in-depth verification” of the existence of a risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial when there are no systemic or generalised deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system of the issuing State (in this case, Spain) “would only be the expression of a lack of confidence in the courts of that Member State, contrary to the principles of mutual trust and recognition between Member States established by the Framework Decision”.
5 comments
**The report that will mark the European Court of Justice ruling concludes that Belgium must hand over the fugitive independence leaders if it does not demonstrate “systemic deficiencies” in the Spanish justice system.**
Belgium cannot question the competence of the Spanish Supreme Court to issue a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), and therefore cannot refuse to hand over the fugitives of the procés for possible violation of fundamental rights if it does not previously demonstrate the existence of “systemic deficiencies” in the Spanish justice system. This is the conclusion of EU Advocate General Richard de la Tour to the questions posed by Supreme Court magistrate Pablo Llarena and which directly affect the case of former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and the other members of his government who fled with him to Belgium. The response of the Advocate General agrees with the Spanish court, which considered that the interpretation of European law being applied by the Belgian justice system in the decisions that have to do with the pro-independence leaders who have fled to that country disagrees with that made by the Spanish courts and with that contained in the framework decision that regulates the European arrest warrants. “The Framework Decision does not allow an executing judicial authority to review whether an issuing judicial authority has jurisdiction under the law of the issuing Member State to issue an EAW,” the Advocate General points out.
The decision of the Belgian judiciary to refuse the surrender of former minister Lluís Puig in February 2021 set off alarm bells in the Supreme Court and precipitated the submission of a preliminary ruling. Although the brief was based on Belgium’s reasons for not handing over Puig (prosecuted for embezzlement and disobedience), Llarena’s ultimate objective was to limit Belgium’s possibilities of rejecting the European arrest warrant for sedition and embezzlement issued against Puigdemont and the former ministers Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí (the latter only for sedition). The opinion of the Advocate General is not binding, but it usually coincides with the rulings issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which in the coming months will give the definitive answers to the Spanish magistrate’s questions.
In the letter sent to the CJEU, Llarena posed nine questions. Some sought answers on how he should act as the judge issuing the European arrest warrant and others were aimed at specifying the role of the Belgian justice system as the executor of these arrest warrants and its possibilities of rejecting them. One of the reasons given by Belgium in refusing to hand over Puig was that the Supreme Court, in its opinion, did not have jurisdiction to try the former minister, but that it should be the courts of Catalonia that should do so. Llarena disagrees with this argument and asked the European court whether the Belgian justice system “can question the competence” of the Supreme Court in this case and reject the surrender on the grounds that it is not competent to issue the European arrest warrant. The response of the Advocate General supports the thesis of the Spanish magistrate. De la Tour argues that no country can control whether the judge who issues a European arrest warrant is competent to try the case. “To authorise such a check would contravene the principle of procedural autonomy, according to which Member States may designate in their national law the judicial authority competent to issue EAWs, and the principle of mutual recognition, the ‘cornerstone’ of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, according to which the execution of the EAW is the rule, while refusal of execution is conceived as an exception which must be subject to strict interpretation”, the Advocate General recalls.
By refusing Puig’s surrender, and throughout the process of processing the EAWs, the Belgian judiciary has questioned whether Spain will respect the fundamental rights of the fugitive pro-independence leaders. The Advocate General warns, however, that the execution of an EAW cannot be refused when there is no information available to demonstrate, “by means of an overall assessment based on objective, reliable, precise and duly updated data”, the existence of a real risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial before a judge previously established by law, a right guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. To do so, Belgium would have to demonstrate “systemic or generalised deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system” in Spain, says De la Tour, who recalls that, where such deficiencies do not exist, the executing judicial authority cannot doubt that the person concerned will be able to obtain a declaration and, if necessary, correct or sanction a possible infringement of that fundamental right by means of appeals in different instances, including the Constitutional Court. Both Puigdemont and the defendants who remained in Spain and who have already been tried and convicted by the Supreme Court have appealed to the Court of Guarantees, which has backed the Supreme Court’s thesis in all cases. For De la Tour, an “in-depth verification” of the existence of a risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial when there are no systemic or generalised deficiencies in the functioning of the judicial system of the issuing State (in this case, Spain) “would only be the expression of a lack of confidence in the courts of that Member State, contrary to the principles of mutual trust and recognition between Member States established by the Framework Decision”.
Translated with [www.DeepL.com/Translator](http://www.DeepL.com/Translator) (free version)
Not surprising.
Rich liberals wanting to separate their region from another one so a select few elites can keep more money for themselves.
Sound familiar?
So what crime besides being politically active did this guy commit? Seems a lot like fascist bullshit to me, regardless the political views involved.
I hope for once in it’s life Belgium has the guts to do the right thing, even if the EU says otherwise.
Good! Wonder how Belgium would protect you if another country is after you.