The decision by German prosecutors to admit the request for Carles Puigdemont's extradition from the Spanish Supreme Court and judge Pablo Llarena, as with the decision to keep him in Neumünster prison, which we found out first thing this Tuesday, sets off the legal debate which from now on will have to take place in the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein. The first thing to be pointed out is that prosecutors have been in a hurry with their statement, given that, taking into account that Monday was a public holiday in Germany, like in Catalonia, they've wanted to start the process as quickly as possible. Secondly, that the prosecutors' position is the one expected and that any other would have been an enormous surprise. It suffices to point out, even just for stock-taking, that a similar position was taken months ago by Belgian public prosecutors when the legal proceedings on the first European Arrest Warrant were started in that country and that weeks later judge Pablo Llarena withdrew the warrant given the fears that the Belgian courts would take apart a good portion of the arguments.
On this occasion, that won't happen. The legal battle will go on to the end and the result is uncertain. President Puigdemont's defence counsel before the three judges of the first chamber of the German regional court which will study the case already know what the battles they have to face are. There are basically three of them: the first to be resolved is whether the judges keep him in prison or whether, on the other hand, they order bail conditions and he is granted release until the final verdict. The lawyers have worked intensely to be able to offer the judges, if this were to happen, a known, fixed address for him. Recovering his freedom on bail at the disposition of the court would be a first victory, as he would regain a certain freedom of movement and the ability to be directly present in the political debate.
The other two battles are related more to the heart of the defence strategy to dismantle the charges for the crimes of rebellion and misuse of public funds. In the first case, the Supreme Court details, and German prosecutors accept, that rebellion was based on an unconstitutional process with violent clashes. And it cites, above all, two moments: the demonstrations on rambla Catalunya in front of the Catalan economy ministry and then the referendum on 1st October. Llarena's story of violence will have to be believable for and accepted by the Schleswig-Holstein chamber. Puigdemont's defence has a chance to try to take apart the Supreme Court's narrative, sufficiently unlike the reality of events which took place those two days, according to many legal scholars.
The same can be said of the crime of misuse of public funds, because there has not yet appeared any documentary evidence of the 1.6 million euros the organisation of the referendum is alleged to have cost and which the Catalan government is alleged to have paid. In this case, moreover, there are statements in the Congress both from prime minister Mariano Rajoy and tax minister Cristóbal Montoro flatly denying it to questions from Ciudadanos. There's also another report from Catalan government auditors saying there is no record in any budget item of money being diverted for the referendum.
Spanish and German public prosecutors have gone hand in hand. As expected. We'll see now whether German judges have the same view as Llarena or not. Everything's open.