POLAND and Romania have supported Spain over its attempt at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to extradite the exiled Catalan independence leaders from Belgium.
The court is considering a clarification requested by Spain’s Supreme Court following Belgium’s rejection of former Catalan minister Lluis Puig’s extradition.
Its decision could impact on the suspended European arrest warrants against former president Carles Puigdemont and two of his former ministers – Clara Ponsati and Toni Comin – who are all MEPs.
Poland and Romania have submitted opinions to the court similar to that of Spain, questioning whether Belgium was entitled to assess potential breaches of Puig’s basic rights were he to be extradited.
Belgium had rejected handing Puig over to Spain, arguing that his fundamental rights could be violated there, and has also defended its stance at the Luxembourg court.
When the three MEPs had their immunity withdrawn by the European Parliament last March, their lawyers appealed against the move in court.
Their privileges were restored in June and withdrawn again in a provisional ruling, which Puigdemont’s legal team believed meant the arrest warrants against him were suspended.
Although magistrates in Luxembourg denied returning their immunity in November, they said the trio should not be arrested or extradited until the court had reached a final decision.
Puigdemont said on Twitter: “It’s understandable that they feel compelled to side with Spain: it’s one of theirs. Poland and Romania are states that are defying Europe.”
The ECJ’s decision on the case could impact could affect other pending cases such Puigdemont’s recent, surprise arrest in Italy.
He came out on top then with the Spanish judge who had pursued him relentlessly, Pablo Llarena, taking a legal thrashing.
However, should the ECJ opt to agree with the Spanish judiciary, the position could be reversed, and support from two other European countries could potentially give Spain a small taste of its first victory in pursuit of Puigdemont.
A European Commission report on the case has also been prepared, but that remains secret.
According to Spanish daily La Razon (The Reason), the commission’s arguments may be in line with Llarena’s, but it concedes that other sources have said the report is “very ambiguous”, as EU decisions can tend to be.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel