Strasbourg approves that self-determination cannot be discussed in Parliament
The European Court of Human Rights considers that the Constitutional Court has the right to veto in order to protect the Constitution
BarcelonaA setback for the independence movement, which has always maintained that everything should be possible to discuss in the Catalan Parliament. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday upheld that the Catalan parliament cannot discuss self-determination: it considers that the Constitutional Court (TC) has the right "in extreme circumstances" to veto resolutions that go against the Magna Carta in order to protect the Constitution. Strasbourg was to decide on Thursday whether freedom of expression and the political rights of MPs had been violated following the TC's veto of the processing of the resolution proposals on self-determination and the monarchy in the Parliament in autumn 2019, and it upheld the decisions of the high court. The ECHR recognises that the rights of parliamentarians were limited, but not violated. According to the European magistrates, the TC's decision was "proportionate".
The ruling follows a complaint filed by Junts MPs and the members of the Catalan Parliament's board, Josep Costa and Eusebi Campdepadrós, that legislature. They accused the Constitutional Court of persistent coercion at the board to prohibit parliamentary debate on these issues. The ECHR maintains that the Constitutional Court did not overstep its authority, that it could veto these debates and that the rights of the pro-independence MPs had not been violated. The Strasbourg-based court concluded that it was a "proportionate and necessary" measure and denied that "the freedom of expression and political rights of the MPs" had been violated, as the plaintiffs claimed.
The ban did not prevent the MPs from exercising their rights, says the ECHR, because the veto was imposed "after numerous debates that had taken place freely" in the Catalan chamber. "The Constitutional Court exercised its power, in extreme circumstances, to enforce its own previous decisions that protect the Constitution as a guarantor of the territorial integrity of the State," explains the resolution that declares the claims of Costa and Campdepadrós inadmissible.
Speaking to TV3, Costa expressed his disappointment at the resolution after recalling that this is the first of a dozen that must come on the Process. "It is a bad omen, a bad precedent because in some way it legitimises a right of exception and comes to say that the debates would not be allowed," he lamented.
Later, in a thread on X, he made a more in-depth assessment of the Strasbourg decision: "The ECHR has decided to endorse censorship in Parliament but not the criminal prosecution of the Mesa. It has bought into Spain's story about "extreme circumstances" to justify the restriction of our rights. But they have only been able to do so."
Sanchez urged to stop the processing of resolutions
At the request of the Spanish government (now with Pedro Sánchez as president), the Constitutional Court urged the processing of resolution proposals on self-determination and the monarchy to be stopped. The Spanish executive considered that the 2015 ruling declaring the Parliament's resolution on the start of the Process unconstitutional and the 2019 ruling annulling the Parliament's censure of Felipe VI and his request for the abolition of the monarchy were being breached. For the Constitutional Court, "the insistence of the Parliament of Catalonia on the affirmation of the sovereignty of the people of Catalonia and the defence of the right to self-determination" constituted an attempt "de facto" to revise the Magna Carta with procedures "different from those provided for" and, therefore, the resolution proposals on self-determination were "incompatible with the rule of law".
now that of freedom of expression, assembly and political representation, because they acted as members of the Catalan chamber and were not "normal citizens". and Campdepadrós and the other that of the 31 deputies of Juntos), the ECHR has included everything in the same sentence because "the arguments are essentially the same".
