The Supreme Court has rejected the complaint filed by the Trade Union Collective of Clean Hands against the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, for the agreement signed between the PSOE and Junts on November 9. The union also denounced the subsequent pact between the Socialists and ERC and the processing of the amnesty bill. Clean Hands attributed to Sánchez alleged crimes of usurpation of functions, administrative prevarication, and bribery. The Supreme Court dismisses the possibility that the agreements between the PSOE and the independent parties could constitute a crime. Although the President of the Government was the main target of the complaint filed by Clean Hands, the union also requested that the Supreme Court take action against the Second Vice President of the Government, Yolanda Díaz, among others, as necessary accomplices of the alleged crimes. The complaint was filed on November 3, and an extension was registered on January 29 to include an amendment in the parliamentary process of the amnesty bill to exclude acts of terrorism that have caused deaths, torture, or degrading treatment from the measure of clemency.
The amendment was not included in the text approved by Congress, which excludes acts classified as terrorism in the European directive on this crime that have caused serious violations of human rights regulated in articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Public Prosecutor requested the dismissal of the complaint, a criterion that the Supreme Court has accepted. The judges reiterated that the pact between the PSOE and Junts is a political agreement that is not constitutive of a crime. “Nor can the amendments proposed by deputies during the processing of a bill be classified as criminal,” the court stated. The decision was taken by a panel of judges including Manuel Marchena (president), Julián Sánchez Melgar, Juan Ramón Berdugo, Carmen Lamela, and Eduardo de Porres, who was the rapporteur of the case.
The complaint filed by Clean Hands against Pedro Sánchez and other government officials was based on the agreements between the PSOE and various political parties, as well as the processing of the amnesty bill, which the union considered to be unlawful. The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the complaint highlights the distinction between political decisions and criminal activities, emphasizing that political agreements and legislative amendments are part of the democratic process and do not necessarily constitute crimes. The Court’s ruling reinforces the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary from political influence, affirming that politicians have the right to engage in political negotiations without being subject to criminal prosecution for their actions.
Clean Hands’ allegations against Pedro Sánchez and other government officials were based on the belief that the agreements and legislative processes carried out by the PSOE were in violation of the Constitution and constituted criminal offenses. The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint signifies a reaffirmation of the principle of legal and political accountability, ensuring that government officials can engage in political negotiations and decision-making processes without fear of facing criminal charges for their actions. The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting democratic processes in addressing disputes and disagreements within the political sphere, while also maintaining the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a separate branch of government.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the complaint filed by Clean Hands against Pedro Sánchez and other government officials serves as a reminder of the legal and constitutional framework that governs political actions and decisions in a democracy. By dismissing the allegations of criminal activity and upholding the legality of political agreements and legislative processes, the Court reinforces the principles of democracy, respect for the rule of law, and separation of powers. The decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between political disagreements and criminal offenses, ensuring that politicians can carry out their duties without undue interference or retribution for their actions. In this case, the Supreme Court’s ruling upholds the rights of government officials to engage in political negotiations and decision-making processes within the boundaries of the law and the Constitution, preserving the integrity and independence of the judiciary in the process.
