Holtrop S.L.P. blog
Share:

A lawyer sometimes has to be opportunistic in order to obtain the maximum advantage and effect out of unexpected circumstances in benefit of the interests of his clients. This is beyond doubt. At the same time, he has to look after the long-term strategic implications of his opportunism.

So far the theory. I really thought it was unnecessary to add that one never should make a fool of him- or herself by using such unfounded arguments that they raise doubts about the capacity of the person uttering these to perform his or her profession. Not to mention wasting the magistrates time with this wrong kind of reasoning. The State Attorney’s most recent attack is formally going nowhere and is materially in the wrong place.

Last Friday, on April 15th 2016, we sent a document with allegations, as a result of another document presented by the State Attorney, to the Supreme Court. The document of the State Attorney refers to a report of the European Commission with merely consultative value which was requested in a procedure of Anpier to the Committee of Petitions of the European Parliament, being the procedure not even concluded. The attorney draws the conclusion that undertaking  any legal action against Spain regarding the electricity reform of RDL9/2013 should not be taken into account, suggesting to file the proceedings.

The document which was provided by the State Attorney is a report of the European Commission which was requested by the Committee of Petitions of the European Parliament (PETI), and it does not prejudge the final decision of the Parliament regarding the petition. In other words, it is not right to affirm that the European Parliament rejects the petition. The European Commission has issued a report, which, I insist, is not binding, it solely expresses its view on this matter. Of course, this document has even less incidence in the procedure of which the concerned State Attorney is in charge of. We can safely say that its incidence in our procedure is absolutely null.  

I know this procedure very well, because I have had the honour to defend various petitions before the PETI, of which one had the same aim as the above-mentioned one. I have also had many meetings with various General Directions of the European Commission in Brussels in order to discuss the several complaints we have filed. Most are still to be resolved. The aforementioned are different institutions, each one with its weight and importance, but none of them can be put in the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Justice of the European Union has the exclusive competence to interpret European Law.

This clear sample of lacking knowledge about the basic operation of the European Union on behalf of the State Attorney is amazing and makes one possibly wonder about the reasons that motivate him for the constantly growing number of documents he is presenting in order to stop the magistrates of the Supreme Court from getting to the procedural moment to submit questions for a preliminary ruling of European Law. In his last writing, the State Attorney plays dumb and, by means of a childish argumentation, tries to impede getting to European Justice. He must be really scared for getting there, and I am starting to doubt whether the reason is his fear to lose or to look ridiculous. 

The original version of this article was in Spanish and was published here.