The Observations of the European Commission for the Court of Appeal of the Court of Accounts on the amnesty legislation have set the Constitutional Court against an existential dilemma: Respect European law, in accordance with Brussels and the Supreme Court, or please please Pedro Sánchez.
The arguments in the document published by Spanish coincales today in fact coincide with which excellent Spanish constitutionalists have repeatedly defended Confronted with the randomness of that amnesty law with which Pedro Sánchez guaranteed his investment in 2023.
The document, dated December 2024, says, but recently transferred to the parties that the Amnesty law “does not seem to respond to a objective of the public interest recognized by the Union.”
The text then describes the reason for that lack of harmony with the general interest: “In the first place, because the voices of its beneficiaries have been fundamental for their approval in the Spanish parliament.”
“Secondly, because the bill is part of a political agreement to reach the investment of the government of Spain.”
And it concludes: “If there is support to consider that the car -amnesties in which the person who owns the political power is intended to be protected by the guarantee of their legal immunity contrary to the principle of the rule of law, it seems that the same criterion must be applied when it is in the government in the government in the government in the government in the government in the government in the government.”
It is this point, that of the strictly personalistic motivation of the amnesty law, which was presented with the presentation of the constitutional court that approved its validity only a week ago, although it had no problem to accept the statement that the government power contributes to “Co -sexistence, social cohesion and resources of citizens. ”
The committee also introduces in its analysis of the precursors who have presented some basic legal requirements by the Court of Auditors.
Because the amnesty law, first, is considered ‘ideal’ to achieve ‘the objective of general interest.’
Secondly, that “interference” is limited to the strictly necessary. ” Something that would only occur if his objective, to “guarantee coexistence”, “cannot reasonably be achieved in an equally effective way by other less attentive resources against fundamental rights.”
At its points 64 to 72, the European Commission also urges the judges and the Court of Appeal to not apply the amnesty law with regard to the two -month period that the rule provides that the judges apply it to each individual case. A period in a purely voluntary matter and that is not fulfilled today.
In its 109th point, the committee ultimately states that the court is “obliged to fit the amnesty” until the increased preliminary directions have been resolved. Something that also includes a torpedo in the flotation line of the amnesty and its application in practice.
The written observations of the committee are not binding and the document also leaves the consideration of whether the amnesty law “influences the financial interests of the Union”.
But they are extremely relevant because they reflect for the first time the legal and political appreciation that the European Commission makes of amnesty legislation.
Because that assessment runs in the opposite direction of the arguments with which the TC paper defended it a few days ago.
The document also denies some of the most important arguments with which prominent members of the government have defended both the validity of the amnesty and the alleged indifference of Brussels for it.
It was the Minister of Presidium and Justice, Félix BolañosFor example, the person who confirmed last month that “the concern of the European Commission for the Amnesty Act is none” or the person he said, insistently on the same idea, if “There is zero concern in the European Commission for Health and Power of the rule of law and the separation of powers in Spain. ”
Although the European Commission has already clarified the words of Bolaños, You supposed carefree dampingIt is with this document with which he has taken a clear first step in the sense of removing an amnesty whose basis was never the general interest of the Spaniards, but the mere political and personalistic importance of the President of the Government.
The last word about amnesty is still in the hands of European justice.
But the written observations of the committee have undoubtedly brought the Constitutional Court to a very uncomfortable position: Choosing between serving rights, justice and Spanish, or Pedro Sánchez.
