CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sF74FAE9B { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.5pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s4945A37E { margin-left:37.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial } .s49248BE0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:86.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D4532D { width:8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A419D68 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; font-variant:small-caps } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE37FF279 { width:144.11pt; display:inline-block } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sCC1D0E8B { width:154.77pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4026543C { width:10.5pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }       FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29780/20 Josep COSTA I ROSSELLÓ against Spain and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11   February 2025 as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   María Elósegui,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   29780/20, 33702/20, 48537/20 and 42224/22) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Josep Costa i Rosselló and 31 others, all of them Spanish nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Spanish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 6, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention, Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns decisions of the authorities in reaction to the repeated tabling for discussion and adoption, in the Parliament of Catalonia, of draft resolutions almost identical to ones that had previously been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. The applicants submit that the Spanish Constitutional Court, in the context of enforcement proceedings in respect of its previous judgments and decisions, prevented the holding of certain debates on questions of general interest, thereby infringing their rights. The first applicant complains, in addition, about the initiation of criminal proceedings against him for disobeying the Constitutional Court’s decisions in his capacity of public official. THE FACTS 2.     The Government were represented by their Agents, Mr A. Brezmes Martínez de Villarreal and Mr L. Vacas Chalfoun. 3 .     Mr Josep Costa i Rosselló (hereinafter “the first applicant”), was a vice ‑ president of the Bureau of the Parliament of Catalonia (hereinafter “the Bureau”) from 17 January 2018 to 11 March 2021. He lodged the first and fourth applications. 4 .     Mr Eusebi Campdepadrós i Pucurull (hereinafter “the second applicant”) was a secretary of the Bureau from 17 January 2018 to 11   March   2021. He lodged the second application. 5.     All remaining applicants (application no. 48537/20) were at the relevant time deputies of the Parliament of Catalonia. 6.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 7.     The four applications are largely based on the same facts, which may be summarised as follows. Relevant background 8 .     During the period from 2015 to 2019, the Parliament of Catalonia adopted several political resolutions contending that Catalonia had a right to become independent and criticising the response of the Spanish State to the will of the Catalan people to achieve a peaceful agreement on independence. The resolutions mentioned, inter alia , the need to guarantee the recognition of essential democratic principles and social, civil and political rights, especially the alleged right to self-determination in Catalonia. 9 .     In particular, on 9 November 2015 the Parliament of Catalonia adopted Resolution no. 1/XI on the initiation of the political process (the “ procès ”) towards the independence of Catalonia as a State, separate from Spain, in the form of a republic. That Resolution, among other statements, established that the Parliament of Catalonia would not recognise the judicial decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court of Spain, which, it considered, lacked legitimacy and jurisdiction. It also established that the Catalan Parliament would have to adopt the necessary measures in order to open that process of “disconnection” from the Spanish State. Some relevant excerpts from that Resolution stated as follows: “1. The Parliament of Catalonia notes that the democratic mandate obtained in the recent elections of 27 September 2015 is based on the majority of seats occupied by parliamentary forces whose objective is that Catalonia should become an independent State ... 2. The Parliament of Catalonia solemnly declares the start of the process to create an independent Catalan State in the form of a republic. 3. The Parliament of Catalonia proclaims the start of a civic, participative, open, inclusive and active constituent process to lay the foundation for the future Catalan Constitution. 4. The Parliament of Catalonia urges the future Catalan government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to these declarations. 5. The Parliament of Catalonia considers it appropriate to begin within thirty days the passing of legislation on the constituent process, social security and public finances. 6. The Parliament of Catalonia, as the depositary of sovereignty and the expression of the constituent power, reiterates that this House and the process of democratic disconnection from the Spanish State shall not be subject to the decisions of the institutions of the Spanish State, in particular the Constitutional Court, which it considers devoid of legitimacy and jurisdiction following its ruling of June 2010 on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia previously voted on by the people in a referendum, among other rulings. 7. The Parliament of Catalonia shall adopt the necessary measures to begin this process of disconnection from the Spanish State in a democratic, massive, sustained and peaceful way, in order to empower citizens at every level, and on the basis of open, active and inclusive participation. 8. The Parliament of Catalonia urges the future Catalan government to comply exclusively with those rules and instructions emanating from this legitimate and democratic House in order to safeguard fundamental rights which may be affected by decisions of the institutions of the Spanish State, such as those specified in the annex to this Resolution. 9. The Parliament of Catalonia declares its will of initiating negotiations with a view to putting into effect the democratic mandate to create an independent Catalan State in the form of a republic, and agrees to inform the Spanish State, the European Union and the international community. ...” 10 .     The Spanish central government lodged a challenge against Resolution no.   1/XI of the Parliament of Catalonia with the Constitutional Court. By way of judgment no. 259/2015 of 2 December 2015, the Constitutional Court declared the impugned Resolution unconstitutional and null and void. It concluded that the Resolution contained statements concerning changes to the form of the State which would only be possible to implement following the procedures to revise the Constitution provided for in the Constitution itself, which had not been followed . In that regard, it held as follows: “ The challenged Resolution ignores and violates the constitutional provisions which vest national sovereignty in the Spanish people and which, accordingly, proclaim the unity of the Spanish nation, the holder of this sovereignty ... This violation of the Constitution is not, as is usually the case with contraventions of our fundamental Statute, the result of a misunderstanding of what the Constitution requires or allows in a given circumstance, but rather the result of an outright rejection of the binding power of the Constitution itself, which has been expressly set at odds with a power claiming to hold sovereignty and to constitute the expression of a constituent dimension [on which basis] a blatant repudiation of the current constitutional system has taken place. This is an affirmation by an authority with pretensions of founding a new political order, and for that very reason, of being released from all legal ties. 7. The Constitution, as our supreme Statute, does not claim that its provisions are set in stone, but rather permits its full revision ... It thus assures that ‘only the citizens, acting necessarily on the completion of the reform process, can hold supreme power; in other words, the power to modify the Constitution itself without restrictions’ ... Each and every constitutional provision is amendable, ‘provided that the amendment is not prepared or defended through an activity that infringes the principles of democracy, fundamental rights or any other of the constitutional mandates’. Rather, ‘the attempt to achieve this’ must be ‘effectively performed within the procedural framework for constitutional reform, as respect for these procedures is always mandatory’ ... ” 11 .     Following judgment no. 259/2015, the Parliament of Catalonia adopted a series of resolutions by which it sought to pursue the same goals as it had by the annulled Resolution no. 1/XI. The Spanish government initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of judgment no. 259/2015, requesting that the Constitutional Court also annul those new resolutions in the light of its previous ruling. The Constitutional Court granted those requests and annulled Resolutions nos. 5/XI and 236/XI (both of 20 January 2016) and no.   306/XI of 6 October 2016 by way of autos (reasoned decisions issued in the course of proceedings) nos. 141/2016 of 19 July 2016, 170/2016 of 6   October 2016, and no. 24/2017 of 14 February 2017, respectively. 12.     On 6 and 8 September 2017 the Parliament of Catalonia passed two laws, one providing for the organisation of a referendum on the “self-determination” of Catalonia and another on the “legal transition and foundation” of a republic of Catalonia. 13 .     Those laws were suspended and later declared unconstitutional by the Spanish Constitutional Court, for both serious procedural breaches and direct contradiction of the Spanish Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia ( Estatuto de Autonomía ). 14 .     Notwithstanding the suspension of the laws, on 1 October 2017 the unconstitutional referendum took place. The Catalan government proclaimed that the secessionist proposal had prevailed. 15 .     Thereafter, the Parliament of Catalonia adopted Resolution no.   5/XII of 5   July 2018, which was also substantively similar to Resolution no.   1/XI of 2015 and which reiterated the goal of establishing an independent and sovereign Catalan State. In turn, the Constitutional Court declared several of its provisions unconstitutional by way of judgment no.   136/2018 of 13   December   2018. 16 .     On 11 October 2018 the Parliament of Catalonia adopted Resolution no.   92/XII, which contained a declaration of censure against the monarch and a call for the abolition of the monarchy: it rejected and condemned the stance of King Felipe VI in relation to the events of 1 October 2017 in Catalonia (namely the “referendum of self-determination” – see paragraph 14 above) and reaffirmed the Parliament’s commitment to republican values. In so far as relevant, the Resolution stated as follows: “15. The Parliament of Catalonia, in defence of Catalan institutions and fundamental freedoms: ... (c) Rejects and condemns the stance of King Felipe VI, his intervention in the Catalan conflict and his justification of the violence carried out by the police on 1   October 2017. (d) Reaffirms [its] commitment to republican values and supports the abolition of such an outdated and anti-democratic institution as the monarchy.” 17 .     The Spanish government referred that Resolution to the Constitutional Court, which declared some of its provisions unconstitutional by way of its judgment no.   98/2019 of 17 July 2019. The ruling found that the Resolution exceeded the powers conferred on the Parliament of Catalonia, and that the expressions of rejection and condemnation of the King’s interventions, together with the call for the abolition of the monarchy, entailed the attribution of political responsibility to the King, which was contrary to the constitutional status of the monarch. In addition, the Constitutional Court reiterated that the parliaments of Autonomous Communities did not have authority to judge the stance taken by the Head of State, or parliamentary monarchy as a system of government. The Constitutional Court expressed its reasoning, in as much as is relevant, in the following terms: “It is, therefore, a formal declaration in which the Parliament of Catalonia takes an institutional position by issuing a value judgment that is contrary to the constitutional configuration of the institution of the Crown. ... it must be concluded, firstly, that those statements of ‘rejection’ and ‘condemnation’ of the King are contrary to [... the Spanish Constitution], which determine[s] the constitutional status of the monarch. ... because his status is regulated by the Constitution (characterising him as a ‘symbol of the unity and permanence’ of the State and entrusting him with the arbitration and moderation of the regular functioning of the institutions ... ) in order to assure him a position of neutrality with respect to ... political contest, a position that affords him a respect that is qualitatively different to that [afforded to] the other institutions of the State ... Furthermore, such a decision by the [Parliament of Catalonia] has been adopted outside the scope of its own powers, which are those conferred on it by the Constitution, the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and its own organic regulations, which do not recognise any power of censure or reprobation of royal acts ...” 18 .     After the above-mentioned judgments of the Constitutional Court had been handed down, the Catalan Parliament adopted other similar resolutions. They included, in particular, Resolution no. 534/XII “on proposals for the real Catalonia”, adopted on 25 July 2019, and Resolution no. 546/XII “on the general political orientation of the Catalan government”, adopted on 26   September 2019. 19.     Resolution no. 534/XII stated, in so far as relevant, as follows: “The Parliament of Catalonia ... (e) Reaffirms its commitment to republican values and is committed to the abolition of such an outdated and antidemocratic institution as the monarchy, as already stated in Resolution no. 92/XII, [which was] approved by the majority of the Parliament of Catalonia, and also reaffirms its rejection of the position of King Felipe VI and his intervention in the Catalan conflict and his justification of the violence used by the police forces on the first of October. ... The Parliament of Catalonia reaffirms its reprobation of Felipe VI for his position and his intervention in relation to the democratic conflict generated by the denial of civil and political rights in Catalonia by the Spanish State. ... The Parliament of Catalonia reaffirms its right to express political assessments and opinions on the performance and future of the monarchical institution and its commitment to republican values, as expressed in Resolution no. 92/XII on the prioritisation of the social agenda and the recovery of coexistence.” 20.     Resolution no. 546/XII stated, in so far as relevant, as follows: “The Parliament of Catalonia reaffirms, in accordance with Resolution no. 1/XI of 2015 and with section I.2.6 of Resolution no. 534/XII of 2019, its fully sovereign character; rejects the anti-democratic impositions of the institutions of the Spanish State and, in particular, of its Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, and, consequently, affirms the legitimacy of civil and institutional disobedience as instruments in defence of civil, political and social rights that may be injured.” 21.     The Spanish government lodged five sets of enforcement proceedings with the Constitutional Court against certain sections of both Resolutions, considering that they were contrary to the court’s previous judgments nos.   259/2015, of 2 December 2015, 136/2018, of 13 December 2018, and 98/2019, of 17 July 2019 (summarised in paragraphs 10-17 above). 22 .     On 10 and 16 October 2019, the Constitutional Court issued five providencias (formal decisions on routine aspects of proceedings) by which it suspended the impugned Resolutions in part. In each case, it also gave notice of the enforcement proceedings to the public prosecutor’s office and to the Parliament of Catalonia to obtain their submissions on the government’s request for enforcement. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court ordered that personal notification of its providencias be given to the President of the Parliament of Catalonia and its Secretary General, as well as to the members of the Bureau (including the first two applicants), requesting them to refrain from taking any steps to comply with the contested sections of the impugned Resolutions as well as informing them of their duty to prevent or stall any legal or material initiative that could directly or indirectly entail ignoring or circumventing judgments nos.   259/2015, 136/2018 and 98/2019. The notifications also warned their recipients of the possible liability, including criminal liability, that they could incur should they disregard them. 23 .     The applicants in all of the applications requested that they be admitted to the enforcement proceedings as parties in their own right in order to defend their rights and legitimate interests. They also lodged appeals ( recursos de súplica ) against the Constitutional Court’s providencias of 10   and 16 October 2019. Counsel for the Parliament of Catalonia also lodged appeals on behalf of that institution. 24 .     On 12 November 2019, the Constitutional Court issued five decisions ( autos nos. 141/2019, 142/2019, 143/2019, 144/2019 and 145/2019). On the one hand, it requested the Spanish government, the Catalan Parliament and the public prosecutor’s office to make submissions on whether the applicants in application no. 48537/20, who were members of the Parliament of Catalonia but not of its Bureau, should have legal standing in those proceedings, given that their individual rights were not at stake. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court admitted the first two applicants, Mr J. Costa i Rosselló and Mr E. Campdepadrós i Pucurull, as parties to the proceedings, but limited their participation to defending their legitimate rights and interests as individuals in those proceedings, independently from the Parliament of Catalonia, which was represented by its own counsel. That decision was based on the fact that they had been personally notified of their duties with regards to the execution proceedings, in their capacity as members of the Bureau. 25 .     Notwithstanding the above, the Constitutional Court considered that the first two applicants had lodged their appeals against the providencias of 10 and 16 October 2019 outside the three-day time-limit for doing so. 26 .     On 18 December 2019, the Constitutional Court adopted five autos (nos. 180/2019, 181/2019, 182/2019, 183/2019 and 184/2019). In each case, it concluded that what was at issue was whether its previous judgments (nos.   259/2015, 136/2018 and 98/2019, see paragraphs 10, 15, 17 above) had been disregarded or undermined by Resolutions nos. 534/XII and 546/XII. It began by noting that both Resolutions had already been debated and voted on by the members of the Parliament of Catalonia, who had thus fully exercised their rights of political participation. In addition, the members of Parliament who had requested to be admitted as parties to the enforcement proceedings had not been personally notified of their duty to comply with any decisions or judgments of the Constitutional Court. As a result, in each of those five autos the Constitutional Court rejected the request lodged by counsel for E.   Artadi i Vila and other members of the Parliament of Catalonia (the applicants in application no. 48537/20) to be admitted as parties to the enforcement proceedings. The specific content of each of those autos is detailed below. 27 .     By way of the above-mentioned autos nos. 180/2019 and 181/2019, the Constitutional Court upheld the enforcement applications lodged by the Spanish government and declared unconstitutional certain provisions of Resolutions nos. 534/XII and 546/XII, respectively, because of their being contrary to its judgment no. 259/2015. The Constitutional Court observed that in the impugned Resolutions the Parliament of Catalonia had asserted that it had the authority to adopt all the necessary decisions for the creation of an independent State. It considered that the Resolutions had thus violated the principle of democracy and the primacy of the Constitution, and the constitutional standards that granted the Spanish people national sovereignty. In a social and democratic State under the rule of law, it was not possible to proclaim the alleged democratic legitimacy of a legislative body as a way of circumventing the unconditional primacy of the Constitution, since democratic legitimacy and constitutional legality could not be set against each other to the detriment of the latter. The political aspiration of an Autonomous Community to amend the existing constitutional order could be defended, but only while respecting the Constitution and the procedures established for its formal revision. The Resolutions and their planned implementation meant that the Parliament of Catalonia was ruling out the use of the constitutional channels expressly provided for a redefinition of the constitutional order, and had had recourse to a process that was incompatible with the rule of law. Basing itself on those considerations, the Constitutional Court concluded that the impugned provisions of the relevant Resolutions were objectively contrary to the Spanish Constitution, in the light of the findings of the Constitutional Court judgment no. 259/2015. 28 .     Again, the Constitutional Court ruled that those autos should be personally notified to, amongst others, the members of the Bureau, with a warning of their duty to abide by the court’s decisions and a warning about the liability they could otherwise incur. The Constitutional Court clarified that those injunctions and warnings in no way infringed the parliamentary autonomy or the parliamentary immunity of the members of the Parliament of Catalonia, or compromised the exercise of political representatives’ right to participate in the political process; it considered, on the contrary, that they were the obligatory consequence of the submission of all public authorities to the Spanish Constitution. 29 .     In the above-mentioned autos nos. 182/2019 and 183/2019 the Constitutional Court found that the two sets of enforcement proceedings concerned, which had been brought against several provisions of Resolutions   nos. 534/XII and 546/XII for being contrary to its judgment no.   136/2018, were identical to and pursued the same objectives as the sets of enforcement proceedings which had been upheld in its autos nos.   180/2019 and 181/2019, described in paragraph 27 above. The Constitutional Court therefore discontinued them. 30 .     By way of the above-mentioned auto no. 184/2019, the Constitutional Court upheld the relevant enforcement proceedings and declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the impugned Resolution no.   534/XII as being contrary to its judgment no.   98/2019 of 17 July 2019. The Constitutional Court concluded that the content of the impugned provisions had to be interpreted within the context of the Resolution’s rejection and condemnation to the constitutional system of parliamentary monarchy, of which the King was a symbol. The auto also stated that it should be personally notified to, amongst others, the members of the Bureau, with a reminder of their duty to abide by the Constitutional Court’s decisions and a warning about the liability they could otherwise incur. 31 .     On 18 December 2019 the applicants lodged individual appeals against autos nos.   180/2019, 181/2019 and 184/2019. On 25   February   2020 their appeals were dismissed by the Constitutional Court by autos nos.   31/2020, 32/2020 and 33/2020, respectively. They were not amenable to appeal. Decisions of the Bureau of the Parliament of Catalonia of 22 and 29   October 2019 to accept further resolutions for processing and debate, and the ensuing proceedings 32 .     Despite the fact that the Constitutional Court had held on several occasions (see paragraphs 10-17 and 27, 29 and 30 above) that the content of the above-mentioned Resolutions was contrary to the Spanish Constitution, and that the members of the Bureau had been personally warned of their obligation to refrain from taking any action aimed at complying with the unconstitutional Resolutions and of their duty to prevent or paralyse any legal or material initiative that directly or indirectly entailed ignoring or circumventing the Constitutional Court’s judgments, some members of the Parliament of Catalonia initiated other procedures with a view to having other resolutions with similar content adopted and the Bureau accepted for processing several such proposals for resolutions to be debated by the Catalan Parliament. Decision of 22 October 2019 and ensuing proceedings 33 .     Firstly, the Bureau decided on 22 October 2019 to accept for processing a resolution “in response to the Supreme Court judgment on the events of 1 October 2017”. The eleventh paragraph of the draft resolution, which was accepted by the Bureau, contained a subparagraph which read as follows: “Therefore, [the Parliament of Catalonia] reiterates and will reiterate as many times as its members wish, the reproval of the monarchy, the defence of the right to self-determination and the vindication of the sovereignty of the people of Catalonia to decide their political future.” Various political groups in the Catalan Parliament submitted requests for a reconsideration of the decision to accept that draft resolution for processing. Those requests were rejected by decision of the Bureau on 29   October   2019. 34.     The Spanish government challenged the Bureau’s acceptance of the above ‑ mentioned draft resolution for processing, and lodged two applications with the Constitutional Court to initiate enforcement proceedings in respect of that court’s judgments nos. 259/2015 and 98/2019, which had declared unconstitutional and, as a result, null and void previous resolutions passed by the Parliament of Catalonia (defending the alleged right of Catalonia to become independent and criticising the response of the Spanish State to the will of the Catalan people to achieve a peaceful agreement, and a declaration of censure against the Monarch and a call for the abolition of the monarchy) (see paragraphs 9-11 and 16-17 above). In sum, the government requested the Constitutional Court to declare that the decision of the Bureau to accept for processing a draft resolution with the above-mentioned content constituted a failure to heed the Constitutional Court’s judgments nos. 259/2015 and 98/2019, as well as its providencias of 10 and 16 October 2019, and that, as a result, the impugned decision should be declared unconstitutional and null and void. 35 .     On 5 November 2019, the Constitutional Court handed down two providencias , by which it suspended the processing of the draft resolution and decided that the President of the Parliament of Catalonia and the members of the Bureau (including the first two applicants), among others, should be personally notified of the initiation of the enforcement proceedings and of their duty to refrain from taking any action aimed at complying with the unconstitutional resolutions, and (once again) reminded of their duty to prevent or paralyse any legal or material initiative that directly or indirectly entailed ignoring or circumventing the Constitutional Court’s judgments. 36.     All the applicants lodged appeals against the two Constitutional Court providencias of 5 November 2019. They also requested to be admitted as parties to the enforcement proceedings in those cases. 37 .     On 27 November 2019, the Constitutional Court adopted autos nos.   162/2019 and 166/2019 by which it found that all the applicants had legal standing and admitted them as parties to the proceedings. In the case of the first two applicants, the court considered that since they had been personally requested to comply with its previous decisions, with a warning that failure to do so could incur liability, including criminal liability, the outcome of the enforcement proceedings could also affect their rights and legitimate interests. Concerning the applicants in the third application, the Constitutional Court observed that the proceedings before it concerned a decision of the Bureau to accept for processing a draft resolution which had been proposed, inter alia , by the applicants. As a consequence, their rights and legitimate interests could be affected as a result of the suspension of the Bureau’s decision concerning that draft resolution, as well as by the outcome of the enforcement proceedings. The Constitutional Court considered that the appeals had been lodged in time. 38 .     On 28 January 2020 the Constitutional Court, by way of autos nos.   9/2020 and 11/2020, declared the Bureau’s decision of 22 October   2019 unconstitutional and null and void, on the basis that it was contrary to its rulings in judgments nos. 259/2015 and no. 98/2019 and its providencias of 10 and 16 October 2019, respectively. That court found that the enforcement proceedings were a suitable procedural avenue for the central government to seek the annulment of the said decision, on the basis of sections 87 and 92 of Institutional Law no. 2/1979 on the Constitutional Court. In both autos , the Constitutional Court stated that it was not censoring political debate in the Parliament, but rather exercising its responsibility to ensure compliance with its judgments and other rulings. In that regard, it noted that due respect for the rulings of the Constitutional Court and, ultimately, for the Constitution, which is binding on all citizens and, in particular, on the public authorities, prohibited the bureaux of the legislative assemblies (such as the Parliament of Catalonia) from accepting for processing any initiative which manifestly failed to comply with the duty to abide by the Constitutional Court’s rulings. That court therefore considered that the power of the Bureau to reject proposals whose unconstitutionality was evident was transformed into an obligation to do so when the Bureau had been the addressee of an injunction from the Constitutional Court preventing the processing of a given initiative. The Constitutional Court reiterated that it had given clear reasons in its judgments nos. 259/2015 and 98/2019 as to why the previous Resolutions nos.   1/XI and 92/XII were unconstitutional. The draft resolution accepted for processing by a decision of the Bureau of 22 October 2019 had expressed that the Parliament of Catalonia would reiterate “as many times as its members wish, the reproval of the monarchy, the defence of the right to self-determination and the vindication of the sovereignty of the people of Catalonia to decide their political future.” The Parliament of Catalonia had thus persisted in its unlawful determination to continue the secessionist process in Catalonia, outside the constitutional order and disregarding the decisions of the Constitutional Court, in pursuit of a political project of secession from the Spanish State and the creation of an independent Catalan State in the form of a republic, without following the mechanisms for constitutional revision. That meant, in the Constitutional Court’s words, “attempting an unacceptable de facto route (incompatible with the social and democratic rule of law proclaimed in Article   1 §   1 of the Spanish Constitution) in order to reform the Constitution by bypassing it, or to achieve its practical ineffectiveness”. Based on the above-mentioned considerations, the Constitutional Court concluded that the Bureau of the Parliament of Catalonia had once again violated the constitutional and statutory order by accepting for processing the proposed resolution that was objectively contrary to the Constitution, in view of its judgments nos. 259/2015 and 98/2019 and the requirements and warnings contained in the providencias of 10 and 16 October 2019 in the enforcement proceedings brought in response to Resolutions 534/XII and 546/XII. The Bureau had been aware of all the above before accepting the parliamentary initiative in question for processing. In fact, the Constitutional Court pointed out that during the meeting of the Bureau of 22 October   2019, the Secretary General and the Registrar of the Parliament of Catalonia, as well as some members of the Bureau, had warned the remainder of the members of the Bureau (including the first two applicants) of the disregard for the prior rulings of the Constitutional Court which it would show if it adopted the decision. The same warnings were repeated when the Bureau was requested to reconsider its decision, a request which it dismissed on 29 October 2019. Moreover, its members had been expressly warned by the Constitutional Court of their duty to refrain from taking any action aimed at complying with the contested paragraphs of Resolutions 534/XII and 546/XII and to prevent or paralyse any initiative, legal or material, which directly or indirectly entailed ignoring or circumventing the Constitutional Court’s judgments, with a warning of the liability, including criminal liability, that they could potentially incur. The Constitutional Court added that the reinforced obligation of public office ‑ holders to abide by the Constitution did not entail a necessary ideological adherence to the entirety of its contents, but did mean a commitment to carry out their duties in accordance with it and to respect the rest of the legal system. As a result, it declared the decision by which the Bureau had accepted the proposed resolution for processing null and void, and also gave notice of its findings to the public prosecutor’s office in case that office see fit to pursue legal action against the President of the Parliament of Catalonia and the members of the Bureau (including the first two applicants) for their disobedience of the previous injunctions of the Constitutional Court. 39.     The first two applicants lodged appeals against those two autos , which were dismissed by the Constitutional Court by way of autos nos.   53/2020 and 55/2020 of 17 June 2020. Decision of 29 October 2019 and ensuing proceedings 40 .     Secondly, the Bureau adopted a decision dated 29 October 2019 to admit for processing a motion “following the request to the government on self-government”. The relevant paragraph of that motion read as follows: “The Parliament of Catalonia: 1. Expresses its will to ... exercise its right to self-determination and to respect the will of the Catalan people.” By a decision of 5 November 2019 the Bureau rejected a request for reconsideration of that decision made by various parliamentary groups. 41 .     On 31 October 2019 the Spanish government filed a new application for the enforcement of Constitutional Court judgment no.   259/2015 in connection with the Bureau’s decision of 29 October 2019. On 12   November 2019 the Constitutional Court, sitting in plenary, ordered that judgment no.   259/2015 be notified to the President of the Parliament of Catalonia and to the members of the Bureau, including the first two applicants, with a reminder of their duty to thwart any initiative, legal or material, that would directly or indirectly imply disregarding or circumventing the nullity of the resolutions concerned, or disregarding or circumventing the rulings of the Constitutional Court in its judgment no.   259/2015 of 2 December 2015, and warned them that they could incur liability, including criminal liability, should they ignore that duty. 42 .     All the applicants lodged appeals against the decision of the Constitutional Court of 12 November 2019; they also requested to be admitted as parties to the enforcement proceedings in order to defend their rights and legitimate interests. 43.     On 27 November 2019, the Constitutional Court, by means of auto no.   163/2019, admitted all the applicants as parties to the enforcement proceedings so that they could defend their individual rights and legitimate interests, notwithstanding the fact that the Parliament of Catalonia was represented as such by its own counsel. 44 .     On 11   February 2020 the Constitutional Court, by means of auto no.   16/2020, declared the Bureau’s decision of 29 October 2019 to accept for processing a motion with content contrary to its judgment no. 259/2015 null and void, essentially on the same grounds as it had given in its previous auto no. 9/2020 (see paragraph 38 above). It also gave notice to the public prosecutor’s office in case that office saw fit to pursue legal action against the President of the Catalan Parliament and the members of the Bureau (including the first two applicants) for their disobedience of the previous injunctions of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 49 below). 45 .     The applicants lodged appeals against that auto , which were dismissed by the Constitutional Court by way of auto no. 54/2020 of 17   June   2020. Subsequent approval of similar resolutions by the Parliament of Catalonia 46 .     On 26 November 2019 the Parliament of Catalonia adopted a new version of the above-mentioned Resolution “in response to the Supreme Court judgment on the events of 1 October 2017” (Resolution no. 649/XII), omitting the impugned sections of the eleventh paragraph (see paragraph   33 above). However, paragraphs 12 and 13 expressly included similar wording, and rejected the Constitutional Court’s previous finding as to the nullity of the proposed resolution, in the following terms: “12. The Parliament of Catalonia: (a) Condemns the ... censorship that the Constitutional Court seeks to impose on the Parliament of Catalonia through, among other things, the injunctions of 5   November 2019 ordering the suspension in part of paragraph 11 of the original draft of this Resolution, which ended with the following text: ‘Therefore, reiterates and will reiterate as many times as the deputies wish the reprobation of the monarchy, the defence of the right to self-determination and the vindication of the sovereignty of the people of Catalonia to decide their political future’. (b) Rejects the aforementioned suspension in part, agreed by the Constitutional Court, [of the original version of] paragraph 11 of this Resolution, the text [of which is] reproduced in letter (a) of this paragraph 12, and considers that th[at] action by the Constitutional Court is contrary to the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, ideological freedom and political participation. 13. The Parliament of Catalonia: (a) Rejects the Constitutional Court’s repeated interferences with the [work of the] Parliament of Catalonia with the aim of limiting democratic debate, which harm the autonomy and inviolability of the chamber and infringe on the rights of the deputies, and claims to be able to debate and vote on the right to self-determination, [on resolutions expressing] reprobation of the monarchy and on the recognition of the sovereignty of Catalonia and its right to decide. (b) Notes that the Constitutional Court has become an instrument to give the appearance of formal law to the will of successive governments of the Spanish State to silence the democratic demands of a majority of the Catalan people.” 47 .     On 12 November 2019, the Parliament of Catalonia also adopted a motion “on self-government” stating as follows: “The Parliament of Catalonia: 1. Expresses its will to ... exercise its right to self-determination and to respect the will of the Catalan people.” 48 .     Enforcement proceedings (brought by the central government) were already underway in the Constitutional Court against the processing of that proposal (see paragraph 41 above). The motion was adopted despite those proceedings. According to the applicants, the reminder sent by the Constitutional Court to the President of the Parliament of Catalonia and the members of the Bureau of their duty to thwart any initiative, legal or material, that would directly or indirectly imply disregarding or circumventing the nullity of the resolutions concerned, as well as disregarding or circumventing the rulings of the Constitutional Court in its judgment no.   259/2015 of 2   December 2015 (see paragraph 41 above), had been received just minutes after the motion had already been adopted. Criminal proceedings against the first two applicants The admissibility of the criminal complaint 49 .     On 1 March 2021, following the repeated injunctions and warnings issued by the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 22, 28, 30, 35 and 41 above), and the notice given by the Constitutional Court to the public prosecutor’s office (see paragraph 44 above), the High Public Prosecutor of Catalonia lodged a criminal complaint against the first two applicants, the President of the Parliament of Catalonia and another member of the Bureau who had voted in favour of the above-mentioned decisions of the Bureau (see paragraphs   32-45 above). They had allegedly disobeyed decisions of the Constitutional Court, despite express warnings of the illegality of doing so issued by senior counsel of the Catalan Parliament, express opposition by other members of the Bureau and having been personally warned by the Constitutional Court in the context described above. 50 .     The High Court of Justice of Catalonia declared the criminal complaint admissible and, by a decision of 16 March 2021, found that it had jurisdiction to examine it. The decision was adopted by three judges: Mr   B.P., Ms A.B., and Mr R.R. It essentially stated the following: The High Court of Justice of Catalonia had jurisdiction to hear the case against all of the defendants, some of whom were still members of the Parliament of Catalonia at that time and some of whom no longer were, in order not to divide the proceedings. A decision to declare a criminal complaint admissible had to be limited to, firstly, a basic assessment as to whether there were sufficient indications supporting the veracity of the reported facts; and secondly, a strictly technical assessment of whether the reported facts corresponded to any of the offences in the Criminal Code. The task was therefore limited to checking whether criminal proceedings should be initiated to investigate the reported facts, the actual existence and legal consequences of which had to be subsequently proved under the due guarantees provided for by law. The criminal complaint reported, in brief, that the defendants, including the first applicant, had contravened decisions of the Constitutional Court despite express warnings from senior counsel of the Catalan Parliament, express opposition by the other members of the Bureau and the orders and warnings issued by the Constitutional Court on repeated occasions. The decision to be made at that stage had to be solely based on the reported facts of the criminal complaint, without accepting o