SPAIN’S former monarch, Juan Carlos, could be forced to give evidence in a damages claim brought by his ex-mistress in a London High Court trial.

Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled on Thursday that the Emeritus King does not have sovereign immunity.

His lawyers claimed he had immunity and invoked the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, in which ‘peace and friendship’ between Spain and Great Britain were sealed.

Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein is suing Juan Carlos for being put under surveillance by Spain’s intelligence service in London since 2012, after she allegedly rebuffed a marriage request from him.

It’s not known what financial amount she is seeking but she is pursuing a ban on the ex-king making any contact with her; an end to harassment; and a 250 metre distancing order from any of her homes.

Corinna Prinzessin Von Sayn Wittgenstein (ger) Während Der Laureus World Sports Awards 2005
SAYN-WITTGENSTEIN,2005(Cordon Press image)

Judge Nicklin will hear more details of her claim on March 29.

He has requested Sayn-Wittgenstein’s lawyers to amend their law suit to recognise that the then- head of Spain’s intelligence service, General Felix Sanz Roldan, only acted in a ‘personal capacity’, rather than on behalf of the agency.

In hearings last December, her lawyers talked about their client getting threatening phone calls from Juan Carlos and from Sanz Roldan.

GENERAL SANZ ROLDAN(Cordon Press image)

They referred to intimidation of her personal assistant and driver, as well as her two sons.

Her legal counsel also mentioned continuous surveillance by ‘well-dressed and Mediterranean-looking’ men.

In 2012, Juan Carlos gave just shy of €65 million to Sayn-Wittgenstein, using funds that were gifted to him by the late king of Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2008.

In her claim, she said that Juan Carlos had ‘wanted to ensure that she and her children would be provided for’, and that he was ‘concerned his family would challenge anything he left to her in his will, after his death’.

Following the transfer, she claims Carlos then asked for his money back or ‘made available for his use’.

And after she declined, he accused her of stealing the funds.

READ MORE:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.