Juan Carlos I fights Judge Nicklin’s decision not to recognize him any immunity
MADRID, 7 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales will hold a hearing tomorrow where the king emeritus will try to overturn Judge Matthew Nicklin’s initial decision not to grant him any immunity from the lawsuit filed by his former close friend Corinna Larsen for harassment, which would allow Juan Carlos I stopped the civil actions undertaken by the businesswoman before the British Justice.
During the hearing, the resolution adopted on March 24 by Nicklin, a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, who determined that Don Juan Carlos did not enjoy the immunity conferred by the Head of State for having abdicated, will be reviewed. “There is only one King and one head of state in Spain and, since June 19, 2014, that is his son, King Felipe VI,” he ruled.
The defense of the former monarch then presented a brief where he put forward several arguments to get him to be allowed to appeal. After a hearing held on July 18, the Court of Appeals gave the green light to challenge the former head of state, but only based on three of the five reasons adduced by his lawyers, estimating that they were well-founded allegations.
In that hearing, Juan Carlos I’s lawyers argued that, despite his abdication in 2014, he is a member of the Royal House and, as such, maintains a special relationship with Felipe VI that means that any action taken against him affects the functions of the current head of state.
They emphasized the fact that, according to Spanish law, Don Juan Carlos is no longer head of state but is one of the six people who make up the Royal House, along with queens Letizia and Sofía and infantas Leonor and Sofía. .
“The term Royal House is a concept, not a place,” said the emeritus king’s lawyer to explain that what is fundamental is the “close relationships in special circumstances” between its members, not the fact that they live together under the same roof.
However, in a ten-page resolution to which Europa Press had access, Judge Peter Jackson of the Court of Appeals explained that it allowed the former monarch to appeal mainly due to the alleged intervention of the then head of the CNI, General Félix Sanz Roldán , in that alleged harassment of Larsen.
Specifically, it cleared the way for the appeal by relying on the part of the lawsuit that states 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.
It would be about events prior to the abdication of Juan Carlos I that, “at least in a first reading”, could lead one to think that “the defendant or General Sanz Roldán were acting in their public capacity,” said Judge Jackson.
Jackson started from the basis 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.
Don Juan Carlos, Judge Jackson pointed out, “alleges 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.
The British magistrate also warned that, even if the former head of state is successful in his appeal, this does not have to be “fatal” for Larsen, since she has put “acts of harassment after the abdication” on the table. with respect to which this “functional immunity” could not be appreciated.
Thus, this Tuesday’s hearing will serve to determine whether or not Larsen’s lawsuit goes ahead and, if so, regarding what facts of all those reported in the lawsuit he filed at the end of 2020.
The businesswoman tells in her lawsuit that Juan Carlos I 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 harm her in her business.
Larsen is demanding compensation from the king emeritus — the amount of which has not been disclosed — 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.
