The European Court of Justice (TJUE) decision to restore immunity to Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín, and Clara Ponsatí came as an unexpected twist for Spanish politics. For many in Spain, this is more than a legal technicality—it’s a matter of trust in European institutions and their capacity to ensure justice in high-profile cases. Reinstating immunity could shift the balance of power between Madrid and Brussels and impact the future of legal proceedings against Catalan leaders.
The court overturned the European Parliament’s decision to lift the protection of the three Catalan politicians, citing the lack of impartiality of the rapporteur, who turned out to be a member of the same political group as the Vox party—a key participant in the prosecution. According to the European Parliament’s rules, the rapporteur must not have ties to either the accused or those initiating the process. Breaching this principle called the entire procedure into question.
Reasons for annulment
Puigdemont, Comín, and Ponsatí were elected to the European Parliament in 2019 after fleeing to Belgium in 2017. In 2021, their immunity was lifted at the request of Spain’s Supreme Court, paving the way to resume attempts to extradite them. However, the TJUE has now ruled that the process was compromised: the rapporteur in the case belonged to the same group as Vox, which acted as a private prosecutor following the events of October 1, 2017.
The European Parliament had previously noted that the charges against the Catalan politicians concerned events that took place before their election and were not linked to their activities as deputies. No evidence of political motivation behind the prosecution was found. Nevertheless, the argument about the rapporteur’s bias proved decisive in overturning the decision.
Arguments of the parties
During the proceedings, Puigdemont and his associates insisted that the Supreme Court of Spain lacked the authority to initiate the process to lift immunity, and that the European Parliament acted without proper objectivity and failed to justify its decision. These arguments were dismissed first by the EU General Court, and then by the CJEU, but the issue of the rapporteur’s impartiality became crucial.
Interestingly, the Advocate General of the CJEU had earlier supported lifting immunity, but the court did not follow this recommendation. This highlights the complexity and ambiguity of the case, as well as internal disagreements within European institutions over such sensitive matters.
Consequences for Spain
The CJEU decision could set a precedent for similar cases in the future and increase pressure on the Spanish authorities. Restoring immunity will complicate the extradition of Puigdemont and his associates, and may also influence Madrid’s strategy on the Catalan issue. At the same time, this ruling may be seen as a signal for the need for more transparent and impartial procedures within European structures.
Debate is already heating up in Spain over how this decision will affect relations with Brussels and the prospects of legal proceedings against other participants in the 2017 events. For many politicians and experts, this is a reason to reconsider their approaches to engaging with European institutions and to protecting the rights of deputies.
Context and developments
The situation surrounding Puigdemont and his associates remains fluid. The CJEU emphasized that the decision could be reviewed if new evidence emerges or circumstances change. For now, the restoration of immunity means that any further action against these politicians must meet stricter standards of objectivity and transparency.
More updates on the case are expected soon, as both sides prepare new statements and possible appeals. Public and media interest in the process remains strong, since at stake are not only the fates of individual politicians but also the reputation of European institutions.
In recent years, European courts have intervened on several occasions in matters related to political conflicts in Spain. For instance, rulings on extradition and immunity have already sparked heated debates and provoked mixed reactions in society. Such cases highlight how complex the relationship is between national and European authorities, especially when it comes to high-profile political proceedings.
Previously in Spain, there have already been situations where court rulings sparked heated debates and cast doubt on the independence and impartiality of judges. Not long ago, the country’s Constitutional Court came into the spotlight over decisions that affected the positions of key political figures in Madrid. Read more about how legal disputes can reshape the political landscape in our article Spain’s Constitutional Court undermines the position of Ayuso’s key ally in Madrid.
