A sharp conflict has erupted in Spanish society between the Attorney General’s Office, the State Legal Service, and the Supreme Court. At the heart of the dispute is the fate of Carles Puigdemont and whether the amnesty law should apply to his case. This decision could affect not only Puigdemont’s future, but also the entire country’s judicial system and Spain’s political stability.
The Attorney General’s Office and state lawyers sharply criticized the Supreme Court, accusing it of an unjustified and contradictory interpretation of the law. According to them, refusing to grant amnesty to Puigdemont on charges of malversación infringes on his right to effective judicial protection. They insist that the amnesty law was specifically created to pardon offenses connected to the Catalan independence process, except in cases involving personal enrichment.
Arguments of the Parties
In their statements, representatives of the prosecution and the legal service emphasize that there is no evidence of personal gain in Puigdemont’s case. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, claims that financing the referendum from the autonomous region’s budget is itself a form of enrichment, since the expenses were shifted onto the state. However, opponents believe that such an interpretation distorts the true meaning of the law and goes beyond its literal reading.
If the Constitutional Court supports the position of the prosecution and lawyers, Puigdemont will be able to return to Spain without the risk of criminal prosecution for the events of autumn 2017. Back then, six members of his government ended up in prison, while he himself left for Belgium. The final decision will rest with the Supreme Court, but the political consequences are already being felt: Pedro Sánchez’s government needs the support of Junts per Catalunya to maintain its majority.
The law and its interpretation
The state legal service insists that the only logical interpretation of the law is to amnesty actions aimed at advancing independence, provided there was no personal gain. The Supreme Court, however, refers to amendments made during parliamentary debates that exclude amnesty for those who obtained personal material benefit. The judges believe that even if the benefit was not direct, the very act of using state funds for political purposes already violates the law.
The prosecution, in turn, points out that in the verdict on the ‘procés’ case, no signs of personal enrichment among the convicted were found. Moreover, it notes that the Supreme Court did not explain why the refusal of amnesty automatically led to the extension of preventive measures, including the arrest warrant for Puigdemont. In the prosecution’s view, this undermines trust in the judicial system and violates the principle of legal certainty.
Political undertones
The situation becomes particularly acute against the backdrop of political disagreements. The Constitutional Court’s decision could prove pivotal for the future of the Catalan issue and for the balance of power in parliament. The prosecution emphasizes that the amnesty law was conceived as a tool to reduce tensions and achieve civil peace, not as a means to punish participants in political processes.
In this context, a question arises: to what extent is it permissible for courts to interpret laws broadly if this contradicts their original intent? The prosecution believes such practice is dangerous and could lead to unpredictable consequences for the entire legal system. It also stresses the need to take into account the public, not private, nature of the defendants’ actions, since these are decisions made in the exercise of state authority.
Judicial Parallels
The situation with Puigdemont echoes other high-profile cases where judges’ decisions have sparked heated public debate. For instance, the recent refusal by Judge Antonio Piña to reopen the investigation into María Dolores de Cospedal and her husband in the Villarejo case also became a topic of discussion and raised questions about the transparency of judicial procedures. For more on how such decisions impact trust in the justice system, see the article on the unexpected twist in the Villarejo case.
In both cases, a key question arises: how independent and objective are the courts when it comes to politically charged cases? This question remains unresolved, and each new decision only fuels public interest and debate.
Context and consequences
In recent years, Spain has faced a series of high-profile court rulings involving political conflicts and the application of new laws. The adoption of the Amnesty Law became one of the most discussed events, sparking a wave of protests and debates. Similar situations have arisen before, with courts interpreting legal norms in different ways, leading to ambiguous consequences for the people involved and for the entire justice system.
Looking back at recent proceedings, it’s clear that each case serves as a litmus test for assessing the transparency and fairness of the judicial system. Decisions on cases involving political figures consistently spark widespread public reaction and shape how the rule of law is perceived in the country. The question of the limits of judicial discretion and the role of political interests in the application of law remains one of the most pressing issues in contemporary Spain.
