Constitutional Court dismisses request by Catalan Parliament to sideline its 2 members suspected of bias

Barcelona (ACN).- Spain’s Constitutional Court has unanimously decided to reject the Catalan Parliament’s requests to sideline 2 of its 12 members from the debate and final verdict on the law and decree regarding Catalonia’s self-determination consultation vote. The Catalan Parliament considered that the Court’s President, Francisco Pérez de los Cobos, and the rapporteur of the appeal against the Catalan Law on Consultation Votes, Pedro José González-Trevijano, were not impartial on this issue. Pérez de los Cobos has been member of the People’s Party – which runs the Spanish Government – and González-Trevijano had worked with the PP’s think tank. In addition, they both share extreme Spanish nationalist stances: the first one has publicly insulted Catalan identity on several occasions and the second one has defended the maintenance of the shrine where Franco remains are exposed. The Court has been quick to reject the two formal challenges, which were filed earlier this week. However, it has not issued any other decision regarding the temporary suspension of Catalonia’s self-determination consultation vote, scheduled for the 9^th of November. In May last year, the Catalan Parliament had already challenged Pérez de los Cobos and requested that he be put aside from the Court’s debate and verdict over the ‘Declaration of Sovereignty’, which was approved by the Catalan Parliament on the 23^rd January 2013, after the democratic mandate expressed by an 80% majority of Catalans in the last elections, held in November 2012.

The Constitutional Court has quickly reached a decision on the challenge request filed by the Catalan Parliament earlier this week aiming to prevent Pérez de los Cobos and González-Trevijano from participating in the decision regarding the Spanish Government’s two appeals against the Catalan Law on Consultation Votes and the Catalan Government’s decree calling for a consultation vote on independence to take place on the 9^th of November. Both the law and the decree were temporarily suspended by the Court until it reaches a final decision, which can take months or years. The temporary suspension of the law and the decree means that the self-determination consultation vote cannot happen on the scheduled day and that all the direct preparations have to be put on standby; however, the temporary suspension does not mean the consultation vote is illegal. In the coming days and probably weeks and months, the Court will be internally debating the two appeals and on whether the Catalan law and the decree are in line with the Constitution or not.

The debates will be around a draft report on each of the two appeals, each of them prepared by a member of the Court acting as the appeals rapporteur. González-Trevijano’s exact role is the person dealing with the analysis of the appeal against the Catalan Parliament’s Law on Consultation Votes, approved on the 19^th of September. Based on those reports, the Court will debate and either ask other members to prepare alternative reports or to reach a consensual verdict after members of the Court have amended the first draft. The verdict is voted by all the 12 members, who can issue individual assessments and express their personal opposition to some parts of the verdict.

Biased and non-objective referees

The Catalan Parliament believes that neither the Court’s President – who has a casting vote in case of draw – nor the rapporteur are objective enough due to their closeness to the People’s Party (PP), which runs the Spanish Government, and given their public statements against Catalan nationalism and identity.

Pérez de los Cobos became the Court's President in June 2013, but he has been a member of this body since 2010.  However, he was a member of the PP and had hidden his membership, which was discovered by 'El País' newspaper in July 2013. Party membership is not strictly illegal, but many think that such a delicate office should be bound to higher non-partisan standards. Furthermore, PP membership is a problem in all debates somehow involving the party, as it gives rise to suspicions of partisanship and lack of objectivity. Since the PP runs the Spanish Government, holds an absolute majority in the Spanish Parliament, runs many regional governments and town halls throughout of Spain and has directly appointed the majority of the Constitutional Court, there are serious doubts about the separation of powers in Spain’s political regime.

In addition, Pérez de los Cobos had published a book in the late 2000s with many statements against Catalonia and Catalans, as well as against people from other nationalities, using old-fashioned stereotypes, sometimes in an offensive way. He made xenophobic statements against English and Italian people, such as “Englishmen were taught how to clean themselves by their cats” and “Italians are the people with the least respect for the law”. However, Pérez de los Cobos is most critical of Catalans and Catalonia. “Not a single political act in Catalonia takes place without a demonstration of masturbation”, he stated. He also said that “money is the rationalising balm in Catalonia”, which refers to the Spanish stereotype that Catalans are miserly. On top of this he wrote “When a Catalan is satisfied he expresses it by saying: ‘It works for me’” thus accusing them of being selfish. He also criticised Catalan nationalism saying it was “a nightmare”.

The other challenged member, González-Trevijano, has strong Spanish nationalist stances. He has written many opinion articles in several media against Catalonia’s political autonomy and self-government institutions. Furthermore, he is extremely critical of Catalan nationalism and identity, in line with the most old-fashioned Spanish nationalist stances. On top of this, he has worked with the PP's political think-tank, the FAES foundation, on many occasions. On top of this, he defended the continuity of the religious space hosting Franco's remains, which was built between 1940 and 1958 by war prisoners through slave labour and where each year neo-Nazi groups pay tribute to the Spanish dictator.

The Court consider them able to be totally objective in assessing Catalonia’s self-determination consultation vote

The Court criticises the challenges, as they did not state anything new since the facts reported about Pérez de los Cobos and González-Trevijano were already known. Furthermore, it considers them to be beyond the deadline, since they “were not filed, as the law demands, as soon as the cause for the challenge was known”. According to the Court, the Catalan Parliament’s allegations against the Spanish Government’s appeal was filed on the 2^nd of October but the formal challenges were not filed until 5 days later, on the 7^th October, despite the facts reported having been known for months. In addition, the Catalan Parliament did not justify why it was filing such challenges on the 7^th and not on the 2^nd of October.

Furthermore, the Court recalls that they already assessed Pérez de los Cobos’ impartiality on Catalonia’s self-determination a year ago and in September 2013 they concluded that he was not biased. The Constitutional “cannot re-examine the same motives” on which it already reached a decision a year ago. Furthermore, the Court considers that if Pérez de los Cobos expressed personal opinions in the past, before being member of the Constitutional body, this is not a problem since “nobody can be disqualified as judge over his ideas”.

Accepting an appeal 5 hours after it is registered by calling an urgent meeting is not being biased

Finally, the Court also wanted to respond to the accusations of not being impartial and siding with the Spanish Government for having accepted the Executive’s appeals just 5 hours after they were filed, through a non-scheduled meeting that was called after the appeals were filed. For the first time in the democracy, the Court met on a Monday. All those exceptional measures and the speed with which they were adopted “are not evidence of a lack of impartiality” because acting in a fast way “cannot go against any of the parties” involved, “whose interest can only be the fast resolution of the questions brought to the Court”.