He rules out that he is immune as a member of the Royal House because “he does not play any role” in supporting the work of Felipe VI
MADRID, 26 Jul. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The United Kingdom Court of Appeals has announced this Tuesday the reasons why last week it agreed to allow the king emeritus to appeal the judge’s decision not to grant him any immunity from the harassment lawsuit filed by his former close friend Corinna Larsen, reasons that are based mainly on the intervention of the then head of the CNI, General Félix Sanz Roldán, in that alleged harassment of the German businesswoman.
In a ten-page resolution, to which Europa Press has had access, Judge Peter Jackson details that he has decided to give Juan Carlos I a free pass to fight his immunity based on three of the five reasons given by his lawyers, although at the same time it stresses that “at this time there is no decision as to whether the plaintiff’s allegations are true”.
Jackson begins by explaining that in this case we are facing two types of immunities, a “functional immunity” that operates in actions based on their “public capacity” and another that extends diplomatic immunity to heads of state to also recognize it to their closest relatives. nearby.
Don Juan Carlos, explains the British judge, “claims both immunities”, the first regarding the events that would have occurred before his abdication, in 2014, and the second for the rest of the events denounced by Larsen.
Jackson clears the way for the appeal by relying on the part of the lawsuit that relates that the businesswoman would have suffered a search of her home in Monaco “carried out or facilitated by the head of the National Intelligence Center, General Sanz Roldán, under the direction or with the consent” of the former monarch.
These are events prior to the abdication of Juan Carlos I that, “at least at first reading”, could lead one to think that “the defendant or General Sanz Roldán were acting in their public capacity”.
“That would be, without a doubt, an abuse of power but it would not necessarily mean that (the king emeritus) was not acting in his public capacity,” adds the English magistrate.
Jackson notes that Larsen qualified his claim to state that “General Sanz Roldán acted in his personal capacity on behalf of the defendant, not in any official capacity.”
However, he believes that “it is arguable that the original lawsuit – which essentially claimed that the king, who is the head of state, had facilitated the head of the security services to organize acts of harassment (at least in part carried out by carried out by State agents)–necessarily alleged conduct (albeit abusive) by him in his public capacity”.
In his opinion, “this difficulty cannot be resolved simply with a last minute change that does nothing more than affirm that those involved were acting in a private capacity”, but must be the subject of a greater debate in a “full appeal”.
He also warns that, even if the former head of state is successful in his appeal, this does not have to be “fatal” for Larsen, since she puts on the table “acts of harassment after the abdication” with respect to which this “functional immunity” should be appreciated.
Jackson also sets out the reasons that lead him to veto the King Emeritus appealing based on two of the five reasons given by his lawyers. To do this, he enunciates a British doctrine by which the members of the House of the King would be covered by the immunity that protects the head of state for “sharing and assisting” him in his official functions.
“I am willing to accept that the term ‘Royal House’ can be used in a sense that goes beyond the purely domestic sense and also extends to family members who are involved in sharing or assisting in the functions of the head of state,” nods.
“But in the present case, the defendant cannot be described as part of the Royal House in that sense. He does not live with his son (not even in the same country) nor does he play any role in supporting him in his work,” Jackson said.
The Court of Appeals already announced on July 18, after a hearing held in London that served for both parties to present their arguments, that Juan Carlos I will be able to challenge the decision adopted on March 24 by Judge Matthew Nicklin, of the Superior Court of Justice.
Nicklin ruled then that Don Juan Carlos did not enjoy any immunity because “there is only one King and one head of state in Spain and, since June 19, 2014, that is his son, King Felipe VI.”
With that resolution, Judge Nicklin paved the way for Larsen’s lawsuit to continue its course in the British Justice, something that will now depend on how the appeal is resolved, once the appeal has been formulated by the former monarch’s lawyers.
The businesswoman recounts in her lawsuit that the former monarch would have harassed her after she put an end to the relationship they had maintained. First to try to get her back and then as a revenge to hurt her business, according to Larsen’s story.
For this reason, it demands compensation from Juan Carlos I –the amount of which has not been revealed– for the costs of his mental health medical treatment, for the “installation of personal security measures and daily protection services” and for the hiring of “former diplomats and former government officials” to intervene in order to “end the harassment” he says he has received.
