Last Tuesday, an exciting hearing occurred before the Court of Appeal on the ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ป๐ฎ ๐ญ๐ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐๐ป-๐ช๐ถ๐๐๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐๐๐ฒ๐ถ๐ป-๐ฆ๐ฎ๐๐ป ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฆ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ต ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐น๐ผ๐ ๐. The appeal focused on whether immunity laws protect pre-abdication actions. In this regard, the appeal is essentially based on three grounds:
The first issue is that the appropriate “test” is to see whether the acts are affected by the “colour” of authority” of the person responsible, i.e. his public capacity, or not.
Secondly, for the defence of the former king, the acts could not be prosecuted as the Spanish intelligence agency, the ‘CNI’ carried them out at the sovereign request of the country, typical of those acting in their public capacity.
Finally, the defence concludes, the appealed judgment would not be correct, given that, first, it applied an incorrect “test”, second, it erred in the application of the “guidances” according to English and international law and finally, the decision misinterpreted the particulars considering that they were ambiguous when in fact they were not.
Interestingly, many elements will still emerge as we go into more detail, such as certain damages that could be subject to liability under the 5(a) exception of the State Immunity Act of 1978.
Many thanks to exceptional journalist ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐๐ผ ๐๐ธ๐ฎ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ and El Periรณdico for once again having my opinion on this unique case in the history of Spain and the courts of England and Wales.
