From the pro-European conviction that EL MUNDO has maintained since its foundation, this newspaper respects the two rulings with which the Court of Justice of the European Union has concluded that the Amnesty Law is compatible with Community law. From that respect, however, we express our notable disappointment, as the CJEU endorses the amnesty that Pedro Sánchez granted to the leaders of the procés in exchange for the seven votes for his investiture avoiding the core of the debate: arbitrariness. That is where our main disagreement lies, as we understand that preventing the arbitrary exercise of power is not an accessory element, but is at the heart of the rule of law principles of the European Treaty.
In its rulings on the two preliminary questions raised by the Court of Auditors and the National Court, the CJEU validates the rule by considering that it is an internal decision of Spain that does not contravene the financial interests nor the EU terrorism directive. This was to be expected, since none of these issues address the fundamental problem of the amnesty: its spurious motivation, the exchange of impunity for power.
On the contrary, the court has chosen to adopt the motivation invoked in the text: the alleged reconciliation within the framework of the Catalan “political conflict.” In this sense, it is striking that the CJEU has ignored the harsh substantive criticisms expressed by the Venice Commission and the representative of the European Commission. The former emphasized that no law can be designed to favor “specific persons,” while the latter challenged it by calling it “self-amnesty,” a debate the court has decided to avoid.
Read more The natural, biological process of amnesty
The reality is that the amnesty was a corrupt rule in its origin, approved ad hominem and drafted by its own beneficiaries. That the CJEU overlooks such a serious subversion is, in any case, a sign of the fragmentary nature with which the Union faces the defense of the rule of law, since it has only decided to take measures against threats considered systemic like Viktor Orban’s Hungary. It is certainly not a good precedent for Europe.
The Supreme Court now understands that the key reason why it did not amnesty Carles Puigdemont and the other leaders of October 1 (the personal enrichment through embezzlement) persists. The European validation of this immoral law does not change the facts nor detracts in the slightest from the recognition of the Supreme Court judges and prosecutors, who throughout the entire process have demonstrated to the citizens that the State works.
Read more The possible FIFA sanction to Argentina for a banner: “The Malvinas are Argentine”
