Corinna replies that Don Juan Carlos would only be immune if the CNI had acted in the interest of Spain
The court reproaches the businesswoman for the contradictions between the two versions of her claim
MADRID, 8 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The lawyers of the king emeritus have presented this Tuesday to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales the arguments by which they consider that the initial decision of Judge Mathew Nicklin of not recognizing any immunity to Juan Carlos I for the alleged harassment denounced by his former close friend Corinna Larsen, focusing precisely on the fact that, according to her, the CNI participated in the events by order of the then monarch, they would be “sovereign acts” and immune.
During this oral hearing, which lasted just over five hours in a double morning and afternoon session, the court analyzed the appeal made by the former head of state’s lawyers to reverse the decision adopted on March 24 by Judge Nicklin , which determined that Don Juan Carlos cannot claim any immunity to avoid Larsen’s civil claims.
As a preliminary step, on July 18 the British magistrates authorized the king emeritus to appeal Nicklin’s decision, but only with respect to the events that took place between 2012 and 2014, so the hearing on Tuesday has focused on that period, to Despite the fact that Larsen’s lawsuit draws a time horizon that goes until 2020: first he would have pressured her to resume the relationship and then he would have tried to harm her business as revenge.
The first to take the floor was the former monarch’s lawyer, who focused his argument – lasting about two and a half hours – on highlighting the legal significance of the “specific accusations” made by Larsen, which describe two specific passages of 2012: a visit to London by the then head of the CNI, General Félix Sanz Roldán, to threaten her and a search that CNI agents would have carried out in her home in Monaco to intimidate her.
The lawyer has reasoned that, if according to Corinna’s version, the CNI harassed her in a “covert mission” carried out by the Spanish secret services abroad by order of Sanz Roldán, who in turn would have acted under the orders of Juan Carlos I, it would be a “classic” case of “sovereign acts” that are protected by immunity.
And this regardless of the fact that said acts could suppose an “abuse of power” by the state agents who carried them out, the lawyer of the former head of state has underlined, citing abundant jurisprudence.
In the reply, which has lasted another two and a half hours, Larsen’s legal representative has stressed that the former monarch would only be protected by immunity in the event that the CNI had acted motivated by an “official” interest, this es, of the Spanish State, although in this case it has argued that it did so for a mere personal interest, that of the King Emeritus.
In his opinion, the key question that the Court of Appeals must resolve is whether, although at that time Don Juan Carlos was head of state and could activate the CNI using his “public powers”, he really did so in his official capacity or “private title”.
In this regard, he recalled some statements made in 2019 in which Sanz Roldán is defined as the “great protector”, “ally” and “friend” of the former monarch.
“The harassment in a domestic situation of a former partner is essentially a private act”, although to deploy this alleged harassment he used his “influence” over Sanz Roldán, he has summarized.
However, Juan Carlos I’s lawyer has indicated that it is “difficult” to think that a “private citizen” would have the ability to launch the CNI machinery abroad for a “covert operation”.
In this sense, he has considered “impossible” to disassociate the alleged intervention of the CNI from the fact that Juan Carlos I was at that time the head of the Spanish State.
Thus, he has warned the court that Larsen’s reasoning is an “artificial construction” to try to divert attention from the fact that any secret service acts in general terms to safeguard the interests of the head of state
The court itself has interrupted Corinna’s lawyer several times to point out the contradictions between the lawsuit initially filed and the subsequent modification.
The magistrates have exposed that he first said that Don Juan Carlos “used agents of the Spanish State” to harass Larsen and then corrected to redirect the matter to a private performance by Sanz Roldán with which he would have done the former king a favor for reasons of friendship. .
British judges have highlighted the importance of that nuance. The first version, explained a magistrate, would assume the immunity of Juan Carlos regarding the facts analyzed.
“We had no intention of implicating the Spanish State or its activities,” Corinna’s lawyer replied, while stressing that, in any case, the modified demand is the one finally accepted by the British Justice.
The same judge has advanced at the end of the oral hearing that her decision on the immunity of the king emeritus will be known later, warning that it could take time because it is an “important” case.
