The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that EU law does not automatically preclude Spain's amnesty law, bringing it closer to full implementation. The July 16, 2026, judgment concerned alleged terrorism offences attributed to members of the Committees for the Defense of the Republic (CDR) and left application of the law in that case to Spain's Audiencia Nacional. It held that a national amnesty intended to ease institutional and political tensions and promote reconciliation can be compatible with EU law, while requiring national courts to assess whether specific conduct falls within the exclusion for serious, intentional violations of Fundamental Rights. The ruling so did not create a blanket amnesty for every terrorism-related case, including high-profile proceedings involving Carles Puigdemont.
A concrete application followed on October 23, when the Audiencia Nacional archived the terrorism proceedings against 12 CDR members known as the Operation Judas defendants. The court concluded that the alleged conduct did not constitute serious, intentional violations of human rights under the amnesty exclusions and extinguished the defendants' criminal liability without a trial. Its order formally closed the case; the Fiscalía had also sought dismissal after the European ruling. The decision marked a impressive implementation key stage: the CJEU's interpretation leaves national judges responsible for examining the facts and applying the statutory exceptions.
Since the law's introduction in 2023, Spain has witnessed an unprecedented standoff between branches of government. The executive's reliance on parliamentary deals, particularly with Junts, and the judiciary's resistance have weakened institutional trust. The CJEU's ruling supplied guidance on the European-law question, but did not resolve every domestic dispute over the law's reach. Individual cases, including those involving embezzlement and the consequences for criminal liability or eligibility for public office, have continued through Spain's courts.
The conflict traces back to the political calculations that shaped the current legislature. The PSOE agreed to process the amnesty law to secure the seven votes from Junts needed for Pedro Sánchez's investiture, rather than out of a clear conviction that the measure was impressive for Catalonia's stability. This move forced the party into rhetorical contortions as it defended a policy it had previously deemed incompatible with the Constitution. While the law's practical effects have become evident over time, its legitimacy remains questioned because of the absence of a clear electoral mandate.
This improvisation has defined the legislature, with the government appearing at the mercy of Junts' unpredictable demands. The Partido Popular (PP) also bears responsibility: the 2017 secessionist crisis unfolded under Mariano Rajoy's leadership. Overwhelmed by the situation, the Rajoy government delegated the response to the judiciary. That decision transformed a fundamentally political issue into a legal battle, a dynamic that continues to shape Spanish politics. In opposition, the PP has used the amnesty to weaken the government without offering a substantive alternative to the territorial challenge. Recent attempts by Alberto Núñez Feijóo to move past the episode have met resistance within his own party.
Judicial actors have also played a controversial role. Many judges view the amnesty as a surrender of state authority and an encroachment by the legislature on judicial independence. The Supreme Court, in particular, has pushed the boundaries of legal interpretation to limit the law's reach, notably in its handling of the malversation charges. Critics have described this approach as an unprecedented form of judicial objection that disregards Parliament's clear intent. Judicial independence is designed to shield judges from external pressure, but it does not grant them the authority to override legislative decisions.
The most contentious moment came when Judge Manuel García-Castellón sought to link Puigdemont to terrorism charges. In a country deeply familiar with ETA's legacy, this move intensified claims of a 'judicial war' and further polarized the debate. The CJEU's July ruling clarified that terrorism-related allegations do not alone settle eligibility for amnesty: national courts must determine whether the conduct meets the serious-and-intentional human-rights threshold. Friction between political and judicial powers has been a recurring theme, as related coverage shows, including the recent warnings from the former Supreme Court president about political pressure on the judiciary.
Spain's Constitutional Court had upheld the impressive constitutionality of the amnesty law in June 2025, information from a published chronology of the law's implementation. Subsequent disputes over its application, including to embezzlement, have shifted the debate from the law's general validity to the consequences for individual defendants. The CDR order demonstrates that even proceedings initially classified as terrorism can be definitively dismissed, but only after the responsible court evaluates the human-rights exception.
As the amnesty law nears fuller implementation, the episode shows the consequences of political opportunism and judicial activism. The initial push for Catalan independence, driven by the region's political elite, led to widespread societal division and a prolonged institutional crisis. The period's legacy will be defined by the legal outcomes and the lasting impact on Spain's political and judicial field.
The 'procés' refers to the Catalan independence movement and the events surrounding the 2017 referendum, which Spanish courts declared illegal. The subsequent legal and political fallout has dominated Spanish politics for nearly a decade. Designed to address the legal consequences for those involved, the amnesty law has sparked intense debate over the separation of powers and the limits of political negotiation. The CJEU's judgment and the Audiencia Nacional's October order have established an impressive route for applying the law, while leaving its statutory boundaries and other individual cases for the courts to determine.
