The Secretariat of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has informed the Supreme Court that will process the preliminary ruling question raised by judge Pablo Llarena on the European orders of detention of Carles Puigdemont and the ex-counselors fled and processed in absentia.
The president of the CJEU has agreed that the application is processed by the ordinary procedures and not by the accelerated procedures, which is the one used when the preliminary ruling was raised in the case of Oriol Junqueras, who were in prison at that time. Legal sources pointed out that the fundamental difference between one procedure and the other is that in the accelerated procedure, for reasons of urgency, the translation times into the different languages of the Union are reduced, and the President of the CJEU can invite the interested parties to limit your pleadings to essential questions of law. Thus, the deadline for submitting these observations can range from fifteen days to the two months established in the ordinary procedure, the one chosen by the CJEU.
On March 9, Llarena raised this question for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on the scope of the possibilities for issuing a European Arrest Warrant, as well as the reasons for its denial. The instructor of the ‘procés’ made this move after Belgium rejected the delivery of Lluis Puig.
With the responses of the CJEU, Llarena will decide whether to maintain, withdraw or issue new Euro-orders with respect to Lluis Puig, Carles Puigdemont, Antoni Comín, Clara Ponsatí and also with respect to Marta Rovira, against whom proceedings are being followed for crimes of sedition, embezzlement of public funds or disobedience.
As ABC reported, Llarena has doubts that the decision of the Belgian authorities to deny the delivery of Puig is compatible with Union law, for which it adopts the decision to pose seven questions to the CJEU. One of the main doubts generated by the examiner is whether the Belgian enforcement body has the power, in accordance with Union law, to control the jurisdiction of the issuing body, in this case the Supreme Court. The 2002 Framework decision that regulates Euro-orders does not recognize this power of control, a silence that derives from the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions between member countries. “There is no rule of European Union law that recognizes a power in favor of the executing authority of an EAW that allows it to assess and control whether the issuing body of the EAW is competent to do so,” he says. And, according to the judge, there is also no room for an interpretation of European Union law that is compatible with the assumption of that power by the enforcement body.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism