The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has refused to reschedule eight sessions of the trial due to the preparations for 1-O, set for April and May, so that one of the accused, ERC deputy Josep Maria Jové, attends the plenary sessions. of the Parliament, concluding that it can delegate its vote.
The civil and criminal court of the TSJC decided last November 21 that the trial of the former high officials of the Government Josep Maria Jové, Lluís Salvadó -current president of the Port of Barcelona- and Natàlia Garriga -current Minister of Culture-, for the crimes of embezzlement, prevarication and disobedience, will be held in 21 sessions between April 10 and May 29, in a case that could end up being included in the Amnesty law.
Jové, for whom the Prosecutor’s Office is requesting the highest sentence, seven years in prison and 32 years of disqualification, requested to reschedule eight of the sessions scheduled for the trial, including the initial one on April 10, because they coincide with plenary sessions of the Parliament, according to the calendar agreed upon by the Catalan chamber on November 28, seven days after all parties agreed on the trial dates.
In his appeal, Jové, who during Carles Puigdemont’s Government was secretary of the vice presidency with Oriol Junqueras, alleged that modifying the calendar of sessions scheduled for the trial was the only way to ensure that his procedural and political rights were respected, to which invoked the right of participation and political representation recognized by article 23.1 of the Constitution.
However, the civil and criminal chamber of the TSJC, headed by the president of the Catalan high court, Jesús María Barrientos, has rejected his request by concluding, in an order, that there is a way of “reasonable conciliation” between his right to political participation and his “unavoidable” obligation to attend the trial, such as the delegation of the vote to another deputy.
The TSJC, which recalls that the trial dates were agreed upon with all the parties, affirms that it does not share the “dilemma” that Jové poses that the only option to preserve his rights is to reformulate the trial agenda to accommodate it to the calendar of plenary sessions. in Parliament.
In this sense, he maintains that Jové’s attendance at the trial, in which he faces a “serious accusation”, in addition to being a right, is also a “legal obligation” and an “unavoidable duty”, which does not contemplate “exceptions or conditions”, beyond cases in which the request does not exceed two years in prison and the accused has been informed of the possibility of holding the trial in his absence.
“In the event of a possible conflict of the right of political representation with another constitutionally legitimate purpose, such as the holding of a criminal trial against someone who intends to exercise the right of political representation, it will be necessary to weigh in its proper dimension the nature and relevance of all the interests at stake, in the search for a formula that offers the best conciliation between them,” the court notes.
And this path of “reasonable conciliation”, according to the court, is for Jové to opt for the delegation of the vote to another deputy, since it is an “exceptional” measure for which, due to his procedural situation, he “responds without difficulty.”
In fact, the Prosecutor’s Office, which together with the State Attorney’s Office and the popular prosecution exercised by VOX had opposed Jové’s request, maintains that spacing out the trial sessions “excessively and unnecessarily” would mean that the courtroom would have an “unreasonable difficulty.” greater doubt” when forming their conviction and that all parties could see their right to effective judicial protection affected.
In its report, to which EFE has had access, the Prosecutor’s Office stated that Jové could have requested the temporary suspension of his status as a deputy – which does not entail his loss -, despite the fact that the Parliament Board rejected in November 2022 to apply the article to him. which plans to suspend deputies who are sent to trial for a crime “linked to corruption”, in this case embezzlement.
When Jové declined this option, the Prosecutor’s Office also pointed out that the delegation of the vote could be accepted, which “would make possible the due compatibility of the rights of defense and political representation.”
Furthermore, in its report, the Prosecutor’s Office refers to the “singular” situation of the Junts deputy and former Minister of Culture Lluís Puig – on the run from Spanish justice – who has “not made an appearance – for obvious reasons – not a single day” in the Parliament and to whom the Board “has at all times been facilitated in making said effective absence compatible with the exercise of his duties as a deputy.”
For this reason, the Prosecutor’s Office concludes that, beyond the temporary suspension of functions, the accused could delegate his vote to another deputy, a measure that, as highlighted, the Parliamentary Committee has admitted on other occasions, such as in the cases of Carles Puigdemont and the former ministers Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig, who, unlike Jové, are “even today,” in a situation of “procedural rebellion.”
