In particular, the amnesty law This violates the European obligation to guarantee effective judicial protection.
In this sense, the Attorney General considers that the obligation imposed on judges to issue judgments within a maximum of two months is not in accordance with EU law. ”Excessively short and binding terms may violate the requirements of judicial independence‘ he claims.
The Attorney General’s opinion is not legally binding, but it is. Indicating the direction of the CJEU’s final judgment on amnestyJudges retain the final say, but in most cases (80%) they end up following the general counsel’s recommendations.
The opinion comes at a time when relations between Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Juntz are at their lowest point. Puigdemont’s party announced a “blockade” of parliament with amendments to all registered laws. your publicist, Miriam NoguerasThis Wednesday”cynical“picture”hypocritical“To the president of the government.
One of Mr. Juntz’s main demands for Mr. Sánchez to repair relations is precisely that the amnesty law also apply to Mr. Puigdemont himself. the last word is now his constitutional courtawaiting CJEU guidelines.
The Attorney General will respond to two preliminary questions submitted. court of accounts and for national courtrespectively.
In the first case, The Board of Audit will analyze the following: Accounting responsibilities of 35 former senior officials of the central governmentamong whom Puigdemont himself and Arthur Mas were involved in managing public funds during the “procedure”. Damage to public property is estimated at approximately 5 million euros.
The law provides that: Crimes affecting the EU’s economic interests are excluded from amnesty.. In this context, the Court of Auditors had doubts about the compatibility of some provisions of the Regulation with European law, which is why it turned to the CJEU.
In the second case, national courts consult the CJEU. Clarify whether it is appropriate to apply the amnesty law to the 12 members of the Committee for the Defense of the Republic (CDR) accused of terrorism.
At a hearing in July, a representative of the European Commission, the treaty’s guardian, denounced the amnesty law as “contrary to the rule of law”, saying it did not serve the public interest but was based on a “political consensus” to invest in Mr. Sánchez.
”Government guarantees impunity for partners in exchange for parliamentary support” accused the community executive’s lawyer. Carlos Urraca Cabides. Brussels claims that the amnesty law also violates the principle of equality before the law of legal certainty and the EU’s anti-terrorism directive.
About The Author
