The issue of a possible amnesty for Carles Puigdemont and other participants in the Catalan process is once again in the spotlight. The decision to be made by the Constitutional Court could reshape not only the fate of specific politicians but also set a new course for the entire Spanish judicial system. For many people in the country, this is more than just another round of political struggle—it’s about principles of justice, trust in institutions, and the future of relations between the central government and the autonomous regions.
Prosecutors and representatives of the state legal service have taken an unexpectedly unified stance. They appealed to the Constitutional Court, asking it to uphold Carles Puigdemont’s complaint against the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant him amnesty over charges of misappropriation related to the events of October 1, 2017. Similar demands have been put forward by other defendants: former vice president Oriol Junqueras, as well as former ministers Jordi Turull, Dolors Bassa, Raül Romeva, and Antoni Comín. The Supreme Court previously denied them amnesty, citing the same grounds.
Arguments of the parties
In its opinion, the State Legal Service notes a violation of Puigdemont’s right to effective judicial protection. According to them, the Supreme Court gave an excessively narrow and unfounded interpretation of the exceptions provided under the Amnesty Law. The judges considered that the actions of the process leaders fell under two reservations: obtaining personal gain or material advantage, and causing harm to the economic interests of the European Union.
The Supreme Court justified its position by stating that the use of public funds to hold the referendum allowed politicians to avoid personal expenses, which allegedly constitutes material benefit. Additionally, the judges argued that Catalonia’s possible secession could lead to reduced Spanish contributions to the EU budget, affecting the Union’s interests.
The State Legal Service believes this interpretation of the law is excessive and contradicts its original intent. In their view, the purpose of the law is specifically to grant amnesty for acts related to malversation within the process. Prosecutors supported this interpretation, as confirmed by legal sources.
Awaiting a decision
These conclusions are part of the review procedure for Puigdemont’s appeal. The Constitutional Court must now decide whether to side with the prosecutors and state lawyers, or to take a different approach. The court’s decision could set a precedent for similar cases and determine the fate of other participants in the process.
The anticipation of the verdict is keeping tensions high among supporters and opponents of the amnesty. Oriol Junqueras and other independence leaders are also awaiting the court’s decision, which could change their legal status. They requested a temporary suspension of arrest warrants and bans on holding office, but the judges refused, not wanting to preempt the final ruling.
Implications for Spain
The legal battle over amnesty for the leaders of the Catalan process highlights deep divisions in Spanish society. Questions about the limits of the law, the possibility of exceptions, and the balance between national unity and regional autonomy remain open. The Constitutional Court’s decision could become a turning point for Spain’s justice system and political landscape.
In recent years, Spain has already faced high-profile cases involving amnesties and the review of sentences for politically motivated charges. Each such case sparks heated debates, protests, and new legal disputes. In 2024, a similar discussion has flared up over the application of amnesty to other participants in the events of 2017, leading to the review of several cases. These proceedings consistently influence public opinion and shape new approaches to interpreting laws in the country.
