The Supreme Court has closed the possibility of reviewing the pardons that were granted by the Government of Pedro Sánchez to the leaders of the process. In the ruling, notified this Wednesday, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber closes the door for political parties to have legitimacy to challenge the granting of grace measures for the mere fact of having acted as popular prosecutor in the criminal process that gave place to the imposition of the pardoned sentence.
The resolution, presented by Judge Wenceslao Olea, and adopted unanimously by the Fifth Section of the Third Chamber, responds to the appeal filed by Vox against the pardon granted to the former leader of the ANC, Jordi Sánchez. “It is true that this Court has recognized those who have been part of the criminal process as having standing to challenge the pardons that affected the sentences imposed in said process. However, this has been the case when that intervention in the criminal process was in the capacity of private accusation. In such cases, legitimation is recognized through litigation, not because of said procedural position, but because the person exercising the private action is directly affected by the crime charged in the process, that is, the exercise of said action is conditioned to who has been harmed by the crime,” explains the court.
The ruling admits that “an arduous controversy has arisen, for and against” about whether Santiago Abascal’s group had the legitimacy to challenge the pardon granted “because it had acted in the criminal case in which the sentence was imposed.” which has been partially extinguished by it”.
However, the High Court rejects such a link in order to recognize the legitimacy of Vox to appeal for pardons to the 1-O leaders. “The quality of being a party to the criminal process would be linked to the legitimation that is required in accordance with the provisions of article 19.1 of the Law Regulating Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. This link cannot be accepted because if the contentious procedural legislator or of the right of grace would have wanted such assimilation would have expressly declared it and it does not do so, but rather what it requires is that the contested activity affects those political associations. And in that requirement it is undoubted that, in principle, having been a party In the previous criminal process, it does not inescapably entail that the affectation occurs due to the granting of the pardon, because said affectation does not arise, it does not seem necessary to insist, from the sentence that imposes the conviction, but from the resolution that grants the pardon of the penalty already imposed”.
The magistrates state that, according to the contentious legislation, for a political party “to be able to challenge a specific administrative activity, it is necessary either that this activity affects it or that it affects collective interests, but in this case only when a legal precept enable them to defend themselves” and add that article 19 of the Procedural Law does not contain the recognition of the legitimacy for that specific and prior action in the criminal process in the terms set forth.
The Third Chamber relies on its consolidated jurisprudence to conclude that “political parties do not enjoy any privilege, as far as procedural legitimation in contentious proceedings is concerned, with respect to any other institution of a similar nature and that they only hold the procedural budget when the administrative activity that they intend to challenge directly affects their rights or legitimate interests, except for special cases in which a legal provision confers said quality to them for the defense of collective interests.”
This is the first ruling that has been notified in the case of the battery of appeals filed against the grace measures granted to the promoters of 1-O. This resolution, which addresses the legitimation of Vox, will be applicable to the rest of the appellants who challenged the aforementioned pardons.
By not recognizing legitimation, the Chamber thus avoids ruling on whether there were reasons of justice, equity or public utility of the Executive when granting the aforementioned measures of grace to those who in the fall of 2017 unilaterally declared the independence of Catalonia.
