Spanish Suitcase: ANOTHER MILLER OF SANSSOUCI?

Disturbed by the clatter of the mill sails in his summer palace of Sanssouci, King Frederick the Great offered the miller Grävenitz to buy the noisy mill so with the money he could erect a new one in a different location. The legend goes that having rejected the offer, the miller was threatened by the King: “Do you know that I can take the mill away from you by virtue of my royal power without paying one dime for it” to what the miller replied: “Certainly, His Majesty could do that, if – by your leave – it were not for the Prussian supreme court in Berlin!”. The court had ruled against such expropriation. The tale appeared first around 1787 in a French biography of King Frederick the Great that descripted his reign as one in which everyone, whether miller or king, was equal before the law![1]

We can congratulate ourselves as citizens of a nation that on April 2013 saw the same fundamental pillar of the rule of law applied for the first time in Spanish history: An heir in direct line to the throne was impeached for corruption^{^[2]}. Cristina Federica Victoria Antonia de la Santísima Trinidad de Borbón y Grecia, youngest daughter of the Kings of Spain, Juan Carlos I and Sofia and since her marriage with Iñaki Urdangarin Liebaert in 1997, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca, has been involved in an on-going judicial case against her husband.

The “Nóos case” also known among the judicial police as “Operation Babel” for the complex framework of legal entities that appears in the summary judgement^{^[3]}, is a case of suspected political corruption perpetrated using the shelter of Instituto Nóos, a non-profit foundation dedicated to the organization and sponsorship of sport events. Mr. Urdangarin, along with his ex-partner Diego Torres face charges of embezzlement, fraud, pervasion of justice, deceit, use of public funds and money laundering for their activities as president and vice-president of the aforementioned organization between 2003 and 2006.

To some extend forced by the seriousness of the events, King Juan Carlos I stated “Justice is equal to all”^{^[4]} in his 2011 Christmas message to the nation, avoiding specific reference to his son-in-law, underlying the current application of article 14 of the Constitution that he once sanctioned on December, 27^th 1978. Spaniards are equal before the law, without any discrimination for reasons of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion, or any other personal or social condition or circumstance[5]. No matter if the person that sits in the dock before the judge has blue blood, is negative for the “Spanish brand abroad”[6] or raise thorns in some conservative circles, the reality is that by bringing potential criminals before courts of justice is the only way to strengthen our democratic institutions, currently under assault in various fronts. This principle captured in article 7^thof the Universal Declaration of Human Rights find its origins in the Human Declaration of Rights of Man and of Citizen and is a fundamental pillar of Democracy as we currently understand it. Public behaviour of political representatives that undermines the independence of court and judges don´t do Spain any favour.

Under the aforementioned principle, the head of the examining court nº3 of Palma de Mallorca, Judge José Castro, informed Princess Cristina on April 10^th 2013 of her impeachment as associate in the illegal activities of Instituto Nóos[7]. The judicial decree was based on 14 signs from two sources: exchange of emails between the partners and the Princess that aimed to prove her awareness of the crimes and the testimony of the secretary of the organization and the Princess, Carlos Garcia Revenga – another suspect in the plot^{^[8]}.

The national general commotion with many rough expressions about the affair aired in all directions by the media intensified after the decision by the Second Section of the High Court of Palma de Mallorca to withdraw the impeachment of Princess Cristina in the Nóos case as requested by the Attorney General, Mr Garcia Revenga and Mr Urdangarin[9]. The court ruled that they did not see “any vehement sign of cooperation” in the perpetration of the public offenses leaving the door open to other prosecutions for money laundering or tax fraud what was finally denied by the National Agency for Tax Administration (AEAT)[10].

It is now the time for personal reflection on the affair with the great relief of not having to carry the ink or fountain pen that writes history. My task, informative and perhaps biased, opinionated and little bit cynic comes to an end raising one question to myself and that brave reader which has reached this point: Is another mill possible?