The lawyers of Corinna Larsen and Juan Carlos I have engaged in a London court in a debate on the immunity of the emeritus regarding the demand that the German businesswoman brought against her former lover by a supposed harassment.
Legal representatives of Larsen have alleged before British Justice that King Emeritus can not enjoy "immunity", because most of the "harassment" actions suffered by their ex-lover occurred after their abdication, in June 2014, and they were "Of essentially private nature".
After two days of hearing, and after listening to the arguments, Judge Matthew Nicklin must decide in the coming days if Juan Carlos I is effectively protected by immunity or if otherwise it appropriate to move forward with the complaint. The plaintiff demands economic damage and an order of remoteness of the king emeritus.
Lawyer Daniel Bethlehem and Professor Philippa Webb, in defense of the Emeritus, declared that Juan Carlos I is covered by his status as "member of the Spanish royal family and the crown of Spain". "This does not sit above the law," explains the writing presented by the Law of Him, "but he only responds by his position before the Spanish Supreme Court."
In this way, his defense argues before the High Court of London that the English courts lack jurisdiction over the demand that Larsen filed against him and alludes to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, as well as the British Law on Immunity.
According to the defense, both legal texts "make it clear that foreign states are completely immune to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom" and that, in this sense, the monarch is affected by that "state" consideration. Likewise, they allude to "reciprocal respect that governs bilateral relations" between Spain and the United Kingdom.
Juan Carlos I says that his immunity persists despite having abdicated on June 19, 2014. "He remains a member very close to the royal family and to the crown and until he abandoned his public responsibilities in 2019 he was a very active member of the Real family, "he says. In this sense, they point out the leans of him that the abdication of him gave him "a position that gives protection and a transcendent status".
The Emeritus tries to neutralize Corinna's accusations, which has been submitted to a "harassment" process since 2012. The turning point of this operation against it is, always according to the story of it, when Don Juan Carlos demanded the reimbursement of the 65 million euros that had previously transferred him.
Facing this, in the session of this Tuesday the lawyer of Corinna Larsen, James Lewis, defended that Juan Carlos I ceased to be "Sovereign" in 2014 and that today the only person "with the exclusive powers of Head of State" , and entitled to immunity because of his status as Monarch de España, he is his son, Felipe VI.
During the judicial view, Larsen's lawyers presented the alleged intimidations suffered since 2012, including an interview in London in which the then director of the National Center for Intelligence International (CNI), Felix Sanz Roldán, came supposedly to say no He could guarantee his security or his children.
In those same dates, always according to the plaintiff, an intruder left a book about the death of the Diana Princess on a table of coffee in its villa in Switzerland, as a severe warning. Harassment continued supposedly after the abdication of it, with shares released against her house in Shropshire, in the vicinity of Birmingham.
In 2017 he discovered a hole practiced in his window and in April 2020, the security cameras received several bullet impacts, according to the documents presented before the judge (the two incidents were denounced before the police).
In the exhibition of his arguments, the lawyers of Corinna Larsen (present during much of the judicial hearing in London) alleged that his client has suffered "great mental pain and a mental stigma" by harassment suffered, as well as "alarm, Anxiety, anguish, loss of well-being, humiliation and deterioration of relationships with your children ".
Larsen argues that those funds, who were donated to the monarch for Saudi Arabia, were a gift for the "love" that Juan Carlos I professed to her and his son. However, she adds that her refusal to return her money caused the CNI to threaten it with "consequences" that "would not be good" if I did not agree to the pretension of King Emeritus.
In this sense, Larsen already explained in a letter that remitted to the head of the royal house, Jaime Alfonsín, and who was revealed by the world in July 2020, who refused to reinstate himself to "avoid potential accusations for financial crimes", al Time that considers an offense that the monarch acknowledges "falsely having stolen his property."Updated Date: 07 December 2021, 16:14