Strasbourg rejects all appeals from the independence movement pending the ruling on October 1st.

BarcelonaDuring the process, the independence movement looked to European justice as the silver lining in the face of constant setbacks from the Spanish courts. However, as the lawsuits have arrived in Strasbourg, the European court has rejected them one by one. So much so that, so far, all those considered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have been dismissed, and this week it has rejected three related to the independence movement. However, the most significant issue remains to be resolved: the court's ruling on the appeals against the Supreme Court's ruling on October 1st—in which many sources are optimistic about the ECHR's verdict—and also against the veto of Jordi Sánchez and Jordi Turull, while in pretrial detention, from appearing in Parliament over the In2. The issue of former President Quim Torra remains to be resolved.

Just this Friday, it became known that Strasbourg has dismissed the lawsuit filed by former Vice President of the Parliament, Josep Costa, for his brief detention on charges of disobedience to the Constitutional Court, for which he was later acquitted. Europe believes there was a "legal basis" for his detention and recalls that he was released as soon as he fulfilled his "obligation to appear before the investigating judge." In this regard, the ECHR notes that he was detained for "approximately four hours" and was then released.

But this is not the only decision by Strasbourg against Costa. It has also dismissed another lawsuit against the State for Pegasus spying, filed jointly with former President Quim Torra. In this case, they argue that the appeal does not comply with the formal requirements established by the ECHR regulations: that all domestic State remedies must be exhausted before filing a lawsuit. Unlike the rest of those spied on by Pegasus, who resorted to criminal proceedings, Torra and Costa opted for administrative litigation to reach the European Court of Justice sooner, after their claims were rejected by both the National Court and the Supreme Court. They filed two appeals with the Constitutional Court following these two proceedings, but only one was dismissed, and the other is still pending. Strasbourg rejected their case because proceedings are still underway.

Costa has denounced on social media that "the ECHR can no longer be trusted to deliver justice in the Catalan case" and has also complained about the European Court's express response, which came in just over two months. In any case, sources at the European Court point out that there are different admission filters and that if they clearly see that a claim has no merit or does not meet the formal requirements (such as exhausting internal channels), a single judge will dismiss it directly without it being discussed in court. For this reason, they argue, decisions are swift and are not published on the ECHR website, which receives thousands of appeals each year.

This is what also happened with the appeal by Òmnium and Plataforma por la Lengua, who denounced in Strasbourg the imposition of a 25% Spanish language requirement throughout the education system: it was also rejected this week. This decision contrasts with the report prepared by the Council of Europe's committee of experts on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which usually influences ECHR rulings, in which it expressed "deep concern" about the ruling on the minimum requirement. 25% of Spanish is taught in the classrooms of Catalonia, Gerard Fageda reports.

The other setbacks

Recently, the court itself dismissed another appeal related to the Parliament. Despite the fact that both Costa and the first secretary of the Parliament's bureau, Eusebi Campdepadrós, as well as several Junts deputies, took the veto on parliamentary debates on the monarchy and self-determination to Europe., Strasbourg endorsed the actions of the Constitutional Court (TC). He considered that the Constitutional Court has the right, "in extreme circumstances," to prohibit resolutions that run counter to the Constitution in order to protect the Constitution, and that this does not violate the political rights and freedom of expression of deputies.

Strasbourg already used a similar argument when it ruled out a human rights violation when former Parliament Speaker Carme Forcadell challenged the court over the ban on the October 9, 2017, plenary session to implement the results of the October 1, 2017 referendum, as stipulated by the referendum law. The ECtHR argued that the Constitutional Court acted appropriately in banning her, without violating the Parliament's freedom of expression or assembly, because the session was convened based on a law suspended by the Constitutional Court itself and because domestic law allows the Constitutional Court to take preventive measures. Forcadell herself already received a setback from the ECtHR at the beginning of her pretrial detention because she had attended it. without having first exhausted all the State's internal resources. The case of former president Artur Mas for disqualification following the 9-N consultation also did not prosper: in this case because his lawyer, Xavier Melero, did not send the observations that the court asked him within the established period.

The only lawsuit related to the Trial that has succeeded in Strasbourg has been that of the judges who signed a manifesto in favor of the right to decide in 2014The ECHR condemned Spain for leaking the 33 photographs of the signatories' ID cards and for preparing a police report on them without any crime having been committed.