He said the lawsuit lacked “a strong, tenable argument” and should have been filed in the emeritus’ country of residence.

He stressed that the British courts had no jurisdiction over the case because Larsen could not prove any ongoing abuse in London

MADRID, October 6 (EUROPA PRESS) –

The High Court of England and Wales has concluded that the king emeritus, Juan Carlos I, cannot be tried in England over an alleged abuse lawsuit filed by Corinna Larsen seeking 126 million pounds (around 146 million euros) in compensation. compensation.

“My main conclusion is that the High Court of England and Wales does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. This is because the lawsuit has not been filed against the defendant in his country of residence, as is his default right; and the plaintiff “has not satisfied Me that he has a strong, tenable argument that his claims fall within the exception to the default rule,” Judge Rowena Collins Rice said.

In the resolution, which Europa Press had access to, the judge explained that – even if he were deemed competent to adjudicate the matter – “he would deny” Larsen’s request because it “does not comply with the judicial rules applicable to the preparation of harassment complaints”.

As the judge stated in 92 pages, Corinna Larsen’s lawsuit “does not show that any evidence can link” the abuse events she denounced “directly” to Juan Carlos I. “The direct perpetrator is unidentified and (not) identifiable,” she added .

The judge concluded that the logic Larsen defended risked being a “false syllogism.” “It was the enemy’s act, the defendant is the enemy, therefore it was his act,” he said, noting that the businesswoman herself had “her own public profile” in which she “actively participated.” and where he is. connected to the “powerful, rich, competitive, and famous.”

Based on the same analysis, he dismissed the argument that the king emeritus was responsible for the leak that gave rise to media publications about Larsen. “He gave no indication how he could prove any relationship with the defendant,” he said.

HARASSMENT IS NOT ACCREDITED IN THE UK

Corinna Larsen reported in her lawsuit that Juan Carlos I abused her after she ended their relationship. First to ensure that they continued the relationship and then as revenge to harm his business, according to Larsen.

The businesswoman is demanding compensation from the king emeritus for the costs of medical treatment for her mental health, for the “installation of personal security measures and daily protective services” and for the hiring of “former diplomats and former government officials” to intervene in order to “end the harassment” that she said he had received it.

But the judge deemed Larsen “had failed to turn her narrative into a claim of harassment.” According to him, Juan Carlos I’s former close friend “did not identify or allege any particular experience of abuse” in England, but rather a series of actions that would have occurred “wherever he was at the time, which sometimes happened in England.”

“If the experience cannot be said to have occurred in a country – for example, because the claimant is domiciled, is ordinarily resident, or was physically present in that country at all times – on what basis can an English court assume jurisdiction over a country? unitary courts in today’s multinational cases?”, stressed the judge.

LARSEN, “DISAPPOINTED” WITH THE RULING

In a statement released this Friday after the court’s resolution was announced, Larsen was “extremely disappointed with the outcome.” “It is disheartening to see that victims of abuse often have difficulty obtaining justice in our legal system,” he said.

The businesswoman insisted that the “bullying and harassment” she experienced towards herself and her children was “continuous” and “aimed” at destroying her “completely”. “Juan Carlos has deployed his entire arsenal to weaken me and the scope of his power is enormous. I am considering all available options,” he said.

The verdict was announced this Friday after last July the court heard the defense arguments of Juan Carlos I, who was in charge of the British company Velitor Law.

DEFENSE OF JUAN CARLOS I

The king emeritus’ legal team then asked that Larsen’s lawsuit be dismissed, considering that the British courts were not competent to try the lawsuit. The defense is based on Article 4 of the EU regulation on jurisdiction, which states that persons domiciled in a Member State, whatever their nationality, must be prosecuted before the courts of that country.

The lawyers stated in their brief, which Europa Press had access to, that the community rules apply in this particular case because they commenced before the end of the Brexit transition period, which was set to last until 31 December 2020.

Therefore, they insist that the Spanish courts are competent to handle Larsen’s claims. On this, they added that the “key question” was whether, in relation to the alleged acts of abuse, the UK was the place where the alleged ‘harmful event’ or ‘direct harm’ occurred, something which, as they pointed out, Larsen’s lawyers did not indicate.

Another argument put forward by the defense was the plaintiff’s “lack of credibility.” In this case, they highlighted that Larsen had requested permission to make new modifications to the original complaint. “Like its predecessor, it is incoherent, internally contradictory, and patently bad as a matter of law,” said the king emeritus’ defense.

Furthermore, he stressed that Larsen’s statements – which Juan Carlos I “categorically denied” – were not only “false” but also “inconsistent with public statements made by him” before the litigation began.