The disappearance of sedition and the modification of embezzlement would make it necessary to search for other crimes in the CP
MADRID, 15 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The criminal reform proposed in recent days, which would imply repealing sedition and modifying embezzlement, will force the Supreme Court (TS) to review not only the sentences imposed on those convicted of 1-O but also the situation of those prosecuted, among them the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont, although the Penal Code (CP) would still offer options, such as attempted rebellion or public disorder, to replace sedition, and disloyal administration or misappropriation, to replace embezzlement.
The legal sources consulted by Europa Press explain that in the case of the former Catalan president, already prosecuted in absentia for sedition and embezzlement, a reform that affected these two crimes would push to study his case.
Regarding the crime of sedition, the Government proposes to eliminate it directly to create a new crime of aggravated disorders. The cited sources indicate that a first approximation would lead to thinking of impunity because sedition would disappear and could not be replaced by the new crime because the guiding principles of criminal law prevent punishing for a crime that did not exist when the events occurred.
However, they add to the thread that this situation would force them to study the facts now defined as sedition to determine if they could fit into the crimes that already existed when they were committed and that survive the penal reform. Here the sources detail that they could lead to an attempted rebellion – a consummated rebellion has already been ruled out by the Supreme Court (TS) in its ‘procés’ sentence – or to the current crime of public disorder.
Regarding embezzlement, the sources emphasize that, beyond the request for reform made by ERC, to which the Government seems to be open, and that it would happen to differentiate the cases in which there is personal gain from those that do not, there is no a specific proposal formulated, so it is an even more open scenario in which it is difficult to advance consequences.
Thus, they point out that first it will be necessary to analyze how the new embezzlement is designed in the CP to determine later if it is possible to maintain the prosecution of Puigdemont for that criminal type.
If it were not, the sources advance that the same operation would have to be carried out as with sedition, that is, review the resulting CP to see if criminal behavior can be prosecuted through other crimes such as unfair administration or appropriation. improper.
In any case, the sources emphasize that the review of those convicted and prosecuted for the illegal referendum of October 1, 2017 will open a “complex” legal debate due to the range of possibilities it generates.
It should also be remembered that the execution of the euroorder issued by the instructor of the ‘procés’, the magistrate of the TS Pablo Llarena, so that Puigdemont is arrested and handed over to Spain by Belgium, where he resides, is currently pending from the EU court.
On the one hand, the General Court of the European Union (TGUE) must rule on Puigdemont’s immunity as an MEP, for which there are already hearings scheduled for November 24 and 25.
On the other hand, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has yet to answer the preliminary question formulated by Llarena on how the Euroorders should be applied.
The General Advocate of the CJEU has already ruled establishing that Belgium cannot question the powers of the Supreme Court to issue these arrest and surrender orders, in an opinion that is not binding but that the CJEU usually follows in most cases.
