The head of the court of first instance number 3 of Barcelona has dismissed the lawsuit of the PDECat against JuntsxCat and other members of the party to request the annulment of the assembly that changed the address before the separation of the two formations, which led to litigation by the electoral brand of Junts.
The judge does not recognize the PDECat “active legitimacy” to claim the annulment of that assembly held on June 27, 2020. In addition, it imposes the costs of the process on the heir party of the extinct Convergència and gives twenty days to the parties to file an appeal. appeal.
JxCat was an instrumental political party that was close to PDECat leaders, created in 2018, and its leadership consisted of three members, all of them affiliated with PDECat, which tolerated double militancy. They functioned as a coalition, in which the PDECat contributed the electoral rights and the money.
Junts per Catalunya was the electoral brand of the postconvergents and the puigdemontistas since the elections to the Parliament of December 2017. The assemblies were not formally held, but a lawyer prepared the minutes and the leaders signed them.
On June 27, 2020, just at the beginning of the pandemic, the JxCat management decided to separate from the PDECat, change the registered office and start having a different website, in addition to changing the statutes to be able to hold meetings electronically. But it was not done in an assembly, but there were individual “video calls” between members of the management and other political leaders. On July 1, the act was signed before a notary, as was usually done, said the former party leaders in the trial held last May.
Then, PDECat leaders “put pressure on the labor force” on the president of JxCat and employee of the PDECat, Laia Canet, to once again hold an assembly to reverse the changes, which were never carried out. On July 14 the new JxCat changed its statutes and at the end of the same month a congress was held to stage the break with the PDECat, which was legally formalized the following October.
The PDECat lawyer argued during the trial that the JxCat assembly to separate from its ‘mother’ party was not legally convened, since the militants were not notified, and the changes were not published on the web, as marked by the party law.
JxCat’s lawyer, on the other hand, argued that the procedures were carried out as they had always been done until then and that no one from the PDECat challenged them within the established period. For this reason, he considered that the current judicial process is a maneuver by the postconvergents to “block” JxCat’s action.
In fact, the justice system already denied last year the precautionary measures requested by the PDECat, which consisted of vetoing the use of the JxCat brand while the litigation was open.
