A twist in the case of Josep Lluís Alay
This Monday, the Provincial Court of Barcelona made a surprising decision by acquitting Josep Lluís Alay, who heads Carles Puigdemont’s Office, of the charges against him linked to the controversial visit to New Caledonia in 2018. The court determined that there was no a personal benefit in the accusation of embezzlement, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Context of the accusation
The controversy began when Alay was accused of using public funds to finance a trip to New Caledonia, where he acted as an observer in a self-determination referendum. The prosecution had requested a sentence of three years in prison, in addition to 17 years of disqualification from public office.
Legal basis
Unlike the position of the Supreme Court, which has denied the application of amnesty in cases of embezzlement, the Provincial Court aligned itself with the decision of the TSJC on other Catalan politicians. The court considered that Alay’s actions were related to the independence process and did not involve an attempt at personal benefit.
The implications of the ruling
The recent decision not only exempts Alay from any responsibility for the visit to New Caledonia, but could also set a precedent in cases related to the independence process. Alay’s lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, has pointed out that this result highlights the discrepancies between the interpretations of different judicial instances on issues such as embezzlement.
Other pending cases
In addition to the controversy over the trip to New Caledonia, Alay is also facing investigations into other matters, such as the Volhov case and accusations of a possible Russian plot linked to the independence process. His situation is further complicated by his recent health problem, which led to an emergency operation for a brain hemorrhage.
Final thoughts
The Barcelona Court’s ruling could change the course of political cases in Catalonia, and raises a number of questions about the future of judicial decisions around embezzlement and amnesty. As this situation evolves, attention will focus on how other courts will apply or might challenge these legal interpretations.
