Catalonia wants out; Spain says no

[...]
... .Under the European arrest warrant used in the European Union, Germany is required to transfer Mr. Puigdemont to Spain within 60 days. But the warrant requires that the Spanish charges have German equivalents. Misappropriation of public funds does, but “rebellion” is only vaguely similar to “high treason” in the German penal code. That’s a tough one to apply to a democratically elected official who never resorted to force, and the German courts can decide to transfer Mr. Puigdemont on the condition that he not be tried for rebellion.

The Spanish government is fully within its rights to defend its unity and its constitution. And European states are right to give the Catalan secessionists no support. But now that Berlin has been thrust into the dispute, it would do well to tell Madrid that treating the ill-conceived Catalan independence drive as treason gives the movement a moral authority it does not warrant. A conciliatory gesture toward Catalonia would do far more to defuse a confrontation that has gone too far.

Clara Ponsatí, the Catalan academic facing extradition from Scotland to Spain for alleged sedition, has said she will resist the European arrest warrant issued by judges in Madrid.

Ponsatí arrived at a police station in Edinburgh on Wednesday to be formally arrested and served with the Spanish warrant, before an expected appearance at Edinburgh sheriff court later to answer the extradition request.
[...]
Ponsatí is expected to be granted bail before a full extradition hearing this summer. A crowdfunding drive to raise money for her legal costs had nearly reached its target of £100,000 only a few hours after it went live on Wednesday.
... ... ...

The crowdfunding appeal established to assist the former Catalan minister Professor Carla Ponsati in her fight with the Spanish government against extradition is believed to have set a new record.

Ponsati was granted bail at Edinburgh sheriff court last Wednesday after the Madrid authorities issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) charging her with “violent rebellion” and “misappropriation of public funds”.

She had handed herself in to the city’s St Leonard’s police station and is now formally under arrest. Her passport has been confiscated.

Moments after the issue of the EAW, Ponsati’s lawyer, Aamer Anwar, set up an online crowdfunding appeal. “Carla came into my offices in Glasgow at 8.30am on Wednesday and we then headed for the train to take us to Edinburgh. By the time we were on the train, the total had reached almost £5,000. When we reached Edinburgh this had more than doubled. After we’d visited the police station, it had begun to climb even more steeply and when we got out of the court I was astonished to see that it had reached £200,000.

“We reached that total in 18 hours and I’ve been informed by the crowdfunding people that this is a record.”
[...]
A preliminary hearing into the extradition case has been set for Edinburgh sheriff court on 12 April, with a full hearing to follow on 18 April. It is unlikely to end there. If the extradition is granted, Ponsati will have the right of appeal.

The Crown, which takes the case on behalf of the Spanish government as the arresting nation, would likewise have the right of appeal if the extradition bid were to fall.
... ... ...

The General Public Prosecutor in Schleswig, as legally incumbent on him, has asked the Higher Regional Court to examine whether extradition of Carles Puigdemont to Spain is admissible. So far, so good, so clear. This is when the ambiguities begin.

This is not only due to Spain and the sloppy arrest warrant issued there against Puigdemont. This is also and above all due to a miserably bad German law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (IRG). The judges in Schleswig have to apply this law; they can feel sorry for you.

On the upwardly open scale of disastrous legislation, this law is high up. Who would like to have a sample of these disastrous ambiguities can read § 81, 3 IRG, which deals with "extradition for prosecution or execution". It is therefore and remains unclear whether a comparison of the Spanish legal situation with the German legal situation is necessary. It remains unclear whether the charge against Puigdemont must only be punishable under Spanish or German law.
It is therefore unclear what the German judges should examine in such a case. This is contrary to the principle of the clarity of standards. For those who do not believe it, the following sentence of the law is quoted: Double criminality should not be examined'if the act on which the request is based does not comply with the provisions of Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/J. European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18. 7. 2002, p. 1), established by Framework Decision 2009/299/Jl (OJ L 81, 27. 3. 2009, p. 24).) (Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant)." After reading the above-mentioned passages, one is, of course, not much smarter.

The Schleswig Higher Regional Court should refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. The aim was to clarify whether and how the judiciary in Germany is bound by the Spanish assessment of the facts of the case. This is a case of fundamental European importance.

The state court in Schleswig ruled on Thursday there was no reason to believe that Catalonia's former leader Carles Puigdemont risked persecution in Spain. It set bail at €75,000 ($92,000).

It ruled that the main charge of rebellion in the Spanish case against him could not be used as the comparable German charge of treason specifies violence.

The court is to consider his extradition on the basis of misuse of public funds.
[...]
The Schleswig court considered him to be less of a flight risk because he is being considered for the corruption, not rebellion, charges.

DW