The Spanish justice system will not follow up on the complaint filed by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez against the judge who prevented him from testifying in writing in the case involving his wife, considering it to be unfounded.
The decision not to admit Sánchez's complaint, which accused Judge Juan Carlos Peinado of malfeasance, was taken unanimously by a panel of judges and announced today by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM).
The TSJM said it saw no reason to follow up on the complaint and proceed with an investigation.
"To consider the notification of its president as a witness in a criminal case as an unnecessary attack on the actions of the Government lacks the most basic justification", reads the decision of the panel of judges of the TSJM.
The complaint was filed on behalf of Sánchez by the State Attorney General's Office, a body that, in Spain, is integrated into the structure of the Government and which in other countries, such as Portugal, is within the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
One of the judges of the TSJM even made a personal declaration of vote, which was also released today by the higher court, in which he argues that a fine should be considered for the State Attorney General's Office for the complaint it filed on behalf of the Prime Minister.
For this judge, what is at stake is an "abuse of the right to complain", "procedural bad faith" and an "arbitrary and gratuitous" complaint, in addition to being completely unfounded.
The magistrate adds that it was also an initiative that "seriously damaged the climate of serenity" that should exist and be guaranteed in the judiciary.
"I cannot understand what damage it could cause to the 'dignity of the Presidency of the Government' if its incumbent appears as a witness in person, and not in writing, before a magistrate who performs his function within and with the guarantees of a State of Law", wrote the judge, in his declaration of vote.
Pedro Sánchez filed a complaint with the courts on 30 July for malfeasance against the judge who prevented him from testifying in writing in the case involving his wife, Begoña Gómez.
Sánchez complained that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado had not respected the law of criminal procedure, which requires the head of government to testify in writing when a case related to the exercise of his office is at stake.
The text of the complaint stated that the judge refused Sánchez the opportunity to testify in writing "without an alternative explanation" and that the magistrate is proceeding with proceedings without having "the slightest indication" to justify them, generating "unnecessary discredit" and bringing the institution of the Presidency of the Government of Spain into disrepute.
Sánchez had said he was available to give written statements, but the judge refused to do so, arguing that he had been summoned to testify because he was Begoña Gómez's husband and not because he was Prime Minister.
The judge therefore upheld the decision to take the testimony in person, in an oral statement that would have to be recorded and that would take place inside the Moncloa Palace, the headquarters of the Presidency of the Government, in Madrid.
The judge, representatives of the Public Prosecutor's Office, defense lawyers and a lawyer from the far-right party Vox, representing the "popular accusations" that were constituted in this case, therefore traveled to Moncloa to take the testimony of Sánchez, who ended up invoking the right of witnesses to silence when investigations concerning their spouses are involved.
The investigation into Begoña Gómez is based on complaints from associations linked to the far right and focuses in particular on her professional relationship with a businessman whose companies negotiated public aid or participated in public tenders at a time when Pedro Sánchez was already prime minister.
This investigation was the reason why Sánchez considered resigning at the end of April, claiming that he and his family were victims of a "slime machine" that spreads lies and misinformation on the Internet, which are then taken into political debate by the right and the far right and brought to court with complaints from extremist associations.
No comments:
Post a Comment