On June 18, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the appeal filed by a number of families against the ruling of the TSJC that obliged a school in Canet to teach 25% of the lessons in Spanish in a P5 class. According to the Court, the appeal is not well-founded; someone should have explained to the families that alleging a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to this matter had no prospects.That the inadmissibility was so foreseeable does not detract from the fact that the Court's reasoning is entirely inadmissible. (No serious judge can claim, for example, that in Catalonia Spanish is "prohibited" as a language of instruction.) But beyond these trivial observations, a deeper reflection is necessary.The first thing to say is that in comparative terms the Catalan model is difficult to understand. In Europe there is no other case in which immersive teaching in a regional or minority language is compulsory for all students in the relevant territory. In Wales and Scotland, there is immersive teaching in Welsh and Gaelic respectively, but it is not compulsory. In the Basque Country and Navarre, there is also immersive teaching in Basque, but it is also not compulsory. Etc.Besides the known judicial reprimands, mandatory immersive teaching in Catalan has also been criticized because it "Castilianizes" Catalan-speaking students, to the extent that (for demographic and social reasons) Spanish has become de facto the language of common use in most educational centers. There is a political party (Alhora) that professes this belief and advocates for two educational networks to choose from: an immersive network with 100% in Catalan and a non-immersive network with Catalan and Spanish as vehicular languages.

1. The ECHR's decision regarding the presence of the Catalan language in the education system has probably been the hardest blow this issue has received since the TC's ruling against the 2006 Statute.

I suppose you are aware of the news that the European Court of Human Rights has dismissed the lawsuit by parents of the Canet de Mar school against the ruling that ordered 25% of classes to be taught in Spanish.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled in favor of the Spanish justice system for restricting the political rights of Jordi Sánchez, Jordi Turull, and Oriol Junqueras following their imprisonment for the October 1st referendum and the December 2017 elections. The Strasbourg court's decision, supported by Supreme Court Justice Pablo Llarena, found that the three leaders violated several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols. The ruling aligns with the Spanish Constitutional Court's assessment that there was sufficient evidence to suspect serious crimes. This is despite the fact that, as the UN Human Rights Committee stated, the leaders had called on citizens to demonstrate peacefully, and isolated acts of violence could not be attributed to them.

The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, which supports the possibility that the Constitutional Court may veto, in certain cases, the processing of motions in favour of the right to self-determination or against the monarchy, has been a bucket of cold water, and there will be time to analyse it. In this article I focus on another issue relating to the ECHR. In the framework of the negotiations between Junts per Catalunya and Pedro Sánchez's executive in Switzerland, on Monday it became known that the Spanish Council of Ministers would approve Spain's accession to Protocol 16 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; Treaty No. 214) immediately. This protocol, which entered into force in August 2018, introduced a significant innovation in the judicial system for the protection of human rights in Europe. Specifically, it allows the highest instances of state courts designated by the Member States to request an advisory opinion from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on questions of principle related to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention. Applications can be made in the context of cases pending before the competent domestic courts, and the ECtHR has the power to accept the application and issue an opinion which is formally non-binding. Although the innovation is significant, it is not comparable with the impact of the preliminary ruling procedure in European Union (EU) law due to the different legal structure of the Protocol No. 16 procedure compared to the preliminary ruling procedure at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) – the so-called preliminary question, which is binding because the aim is to ensure the supremacy of EU law.

Three current issues of the day. Mazón is already a political corpse, booed in the streets and at events, which he has now, as a desperate measure of self-defense, shown the capture of a security camera from the emergency centre which determines that, in fact, he arrived at around eight thirty in the evening on the day of the DANA, as a way of avoiding responsibility for not having sent the alert earlier by mobile phone because he was not there. It doesn't matter, since the day before yesterday the judge clearly determined that the majority of the 227 dead did not receive any official alert that would probably have saved them, all those who had anything to do with this decision are well trapped, and the head of the trapped is Mazón.

That a court that calls itself a "Human Rights" court should establish that it is proportionate to veto a debate and a vote in parliament on the right to self-determination and the monarchy is the closest thing to a contradiction. Surely, to support their ruling, the European judges have found more solid legal grounds in the Constitution of a pre-existing state and in the jurisprudence of its highest interpreting body than in the attempts to disconnect from a regional Parliament with concealed constituent intentions. But the paradox remains: there is a right for self-determination or the monarchy to be voted on by citizens in an electoral programme but not for them to be voted on by their representatives, even if a parliamentary majority is in favour of it at the polls.