The Supreme Court has reopened an investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds in the Catalan independence process that had been closed by the Provincial Court of Barcelona, after detecting alleged irregularities by the investigating judge and prosecutor involved in the case. The Criminal Chamber has sided with the Prosecutor’s Office and ordered the judicial investigation to be resumed on nine members and executives of the Catalan Association of Municipalities (ACM), who are being investigated for embezzlement, fraud, and illegal exactions for channeling public money to the secessionist process in Catalonia. According to the Supreme Court, the closure of the case was premature.
The closure of the investigation into the ACM in July 2021 was notorious for the harsh criticism from the Barcelona Court of Appeal towards the actions of the judge and prosecutor. The Seventh Section of the Court of Appeal considered all actions null and void, both the decrees issued by the Prosecutor’s Office and the resolutions issued by the investigating judge, and ordered the case to be archived, concluding that the evidence obtained in the raids violated the fundamental rights of the suspects. The judges criticized the entire investigation, but especially the Prosecutor’s Office for alleged errors in the complaint that initiated the criminal proceedings.
The Investigation Court 16 of Barcelona had opened an investigation and admitted for processing the complaint filed by the Prosecutor’s Office against nine individuals for diverting funds from the ACM since 2015 for purposes unrelated to the association, allegedly to create structures to facilitate the holding of the independence referendum and to carry out other activities related to the independence process. The court ordered raids and seizures of electronic devices and maintained secrecy in the proceedings. The Court of Appeal concluded that for a year, individuals were investigated without their knowledge, without being informed or able to provide information that could have altered the allegations in the complaint. Furthermore, the judges rebuked the prosecutor for accessing protected information without sufficient justification.
The Prosecutor’s Office appealed the closure of the case, arguing that the decision was premature, untimely, and improper, and the Supreme Court has now ruled in its favor. In a ruling written by Judge Juan Ramón Berdugo, the court endorsed the authorization for the raids and clarified that the resolution detailed the investigated facts, the individuals involved, and the potential crimes being investigated. The court explained that it was indeed investigating several clearly identified individuals continuously for a year and conducting the investigation confidentially, following the request of the Prosecutor to maintain secrecy.
The judges defend the necessity of continuing the investigation without the knowledge of the suspects to gather incriminating evidence to support the complaint, while affirming that the fundamental rights of the accused were not violated. They state that when the suspects are called to testify as defendants, they will be able to present their arguments and contradict the evidence already presented, as well as propose additional evidence related to the facts. The Supreme Court acknowledges that the control of legal proceedings can be carried out at any stage of the process, but suggests that the appropriate time for raising objections is during the trial phase, where the court can analyze all evidence rigorously.
The decision of the Provincial Court was deemed premature by the Supreme Court, composed of the judges Manuel Marchena (president), Juan Ramón Berdugo (reporting judge), Ana María Ferrer, Eduardo de Porres, and Ángel Luis Hurtado. The ruling emphasizes the importance of a fair and thorough process in handling legal proceedings to ensure the protection of the rights of all parties involved.
