New financial penalty for Vox and PP in the case of pardons
Once again, the third room of the Supreme Court, dedicated to administrative disputes, has issued judgments that not only reject the appeals presented by the Popular Party and Vox against the pardon granted to former councilor Jordi Turull, but also condemn these two formations to pay court costs due to his procedural recklessness.
Fine imposed by the law of administrative contentious jurisdiction
The two resolutions, known thanks to their access by various means, determine that Vox and PP must each pay 4,000 euros in application of article 139 of the Law on the Jurisdiction of Administrative Disputes. This is not an isolated case; the same room has previously punished the filing of appeals against the pardons granted by the Spanish government to pro-independence politicians.
Other political figures affected
The former delegate of the Spanish government in Catalonia, Enric Millo, and the former leader of Ciutadans, Inés Arrimadas, were also sanctioned for presenting repetitive appeals against pardons, such as those of the former leader of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, and former president of Omnium Cultural, Jordi Cuixart.
Key concepts in resolutions
The two resolutions are exemplary in what are considered appropriate procedural practices and, in particular, in what is called ‘environmental violence,’ a term used by the appellants to justify their alleged harm. The magistrates, headed by Pablo Lucas Murillo de la Cueva, warn that being a party in a criminal process does not automatically legitimize to intervene in a contentious process, where popular action is not contemplated.
The legitimacy of the parties to challenge pardons
The resolutions, of 22 and 25 pages respectively, explain in detail what is the legitimacy to appeal against a government act such as a pardon. The magistrates remind the PP and Vox that their status as parties does not grant them more rights than any other citizen regarding the execution or not of a sentence derived from the approval of a pardon.
Legal argumentation of the court
The court emphasizes that a subjective defense of legality cannot be considered as a valid argument to annul a pardon decree. According to the magistrates, the ability to appeal a pardon depends on who may be harmed, not on who has difficulty presenting the appeal. They insist that it is not about immunity from judicial review, but about who can be considered affected or able to defend collective interests.
Confusion between collective and private interest
The magistrates argue that the confusion between collective and particular interest does not allow political parties to be granted legitimacy to appeal a pardon. They emphasize that no legal precept grants this proposed residual legitimacy, taking into account that the general interests orphaned by ownership are nothing more than collective interests.