All the ingredients are ready. Lawyers for both defendants, for alleged acts of harassment, illegal surveillance of agents and/or subcontractors national intelligence center (CNI) in Monaco and London, and defamation—John Charles I– like the plaintiff – her ex-boyfriend Corinna Zoo Sion-Wittgenstein– has presented his arguments and evidence in the Court of Appeal of the High Court of England and Wales.
It is now a question of whether a judge or judge – usually it is one or only one – “to authorize an appeal against the last 24 March judgment of permanent causes of law” by which the judge Matthew Nicklin He rejected the immunity of the sovereign or state enforced by the defense of Juan Carlos I to get rid of his former lover’s civil suit.
Generally, the “judgment” is very small. The judge or judge Petitions It was not specified, as of Monday, June 21, who the decision would fall on – resolves and communicates “in writing”; (‘Case given decision on paper’), according to a decision dated June 15 known by this newspaper.
immunity, yes or no
If it is appreciated that sovereign immunity on which to protect John Charles I (emeritus is a member of the royal family, he is a sovereign and a member of the Spanish Royal House) As it is a debatable issue or raises a very relevant position to the law, the judge will flag one light for Appeal, Otherwise it will be rejected.
Therefore, apparently a real issue is not discussed. But there is no doubt that Judge Nicklin denied an earlier request on March 29 to appeal in an appeal or restitution—resources that are called in the Spanish judicial system—a second negativeIn contrast to Juan Carlos I introduces the process in the other two preliminary questions, who are pulling the cause together with immunity.
“rules civil Procedure Via Article 52.6. 1 indicates that in order to allow an appeal, the court considers that there are genuine possibilities of upholding the appeal or that there are relevant issues which justify the hearing of the appeal; is) indicates. Joseph GalvezFrom Del Canto Chambers Law Firm in London to EL PERIÓDICO.
“The defense of King Emeritus has already been requested” appeal request During the hearing on March 29, you have already had an opportunity to express your desire to appeal at the hearing. For these purposes, Petitions When reviewing the petition, he will do it on paper, as he considers that he has had an opportunity to express his point of view. There may be hearings on exceptional occasions that justify it, but here it will be a matter of repeating what was already said on March 29, he explained.
really, Judge Niklin dismissed the appeal of his own decision, There are strong arguments in his sentence of March 24.
“If Juan Carlos I steals a diamond ring from a jewelry store in Hatton Gardens” [en Camden, el histórico `distrito del diamante´ en Londres] According to his defence, he would not face civil or criminal proceedings in this jurisdiction (unless the Spanish state waives his immunity). It is not possible”, sentenced the judge.
barrier imposed for Appeal Both are to be authorized and if it manages to break after this first filter – authorization – is that Judge Nicklin’s ruling tells the jurisprudence from the Court of Appeal precisely whether Juan Carlos I is part of His Majesty King Felipe VI. house of (‘domestic’ in English).
As he said, “The Court of Appeal has historically considered the central criterion for expansion personal immunity A diplomatic is the dependency for the members of the embassy (perhaps other than the wives), not the diplomatic functions or activity of those on behalf of the diplomats. And in applying this criterion, taking into account the arguments of Corinna’s lawyers, the judge observed that John Charles I did not depend on Philip VI And even so, his annual allowance (193,000 euros) was taken away.
The defense of Juan Carlos I argued that the judge should take into account that “the Petitions He has not produced a test or evidence to explain the phrase “their family members who are part of the Royal House”.
no documentary evidence
Therefore, Niklin pointed out that “it is up to me to decide whether Juan Carlos I is a member of the family of King Felipe VI, who is part of his Royal House, based on the evidence presented in this case.” and taking into account the same, among them, though not conclusive but illustrative, the fact is that neither defense nor foreign office secretary [Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores británico] Can present an official document on the position or status of Juan Carlos I in court Spanish constitutional orderThe judge ruled that the status in which the King Emeritus is Felipe VI’s father and family member does not mean that he is a member of the Royal House.
Judge Nicklin wants to expedite the process of entering into acts that condemn Corinna’s trial. In principle, he announced on March 29 that he expected the Court of Appeal to settle the matter for a hearing in the Superior Court of Justice on July 1, with the aim of reconciling both. past questionsOnce the immunity has been overcome: an allegedly irregular way, according to the defense of Juan Carlos I, to communicate the lawsuit against him on December 29, 2020 (by WhatsApp on his mobile phone because it could not be registered Zarzuela PalaceCorinna’s lawyers) and request that English justice deny jurisdiction in Spain’s favor on the grounds that the acts of persecution do not fit the law of the United Kingdom.