Three Mossos d'Esquadra officers have entered the abbreviated-procedure stage in a case over Carles Puigdemont's departure from Barcelona on 8 August 2024. The proceedings resumed after the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona overturned the provisional closure ordered by Barcelona Court of Instruction No. 24. The appellate court said the alleged conduct could warrant examination as a possible failure by public officials to pursue an offence under Article 408 of Spain's Penal Code. It did not convict the officers or establish that they coordinated an escape.
Puigdemont returned briefly to Barcelona as the Catalan Parliament prepared to vote on Salvador Illa's investiture as president of the Generalitat. He had remained outside Spain since leaving for Belgium after the 2017 unilateral independence declaration, and a national arrest warrant was in force when he appeared. A Mossos operation to locate and detain him did not stop him from leaving Spain. The incident prompted a separate investigation into the officers' alleged failure to enforce the warrant.
Investigating judge María Antonia Coscollola of Barcelona Court of Instruction No. 24 sent the proceedings to the Public Prosecutor and the private accusers, giving them ten days to submit indictments. Popular accusers Hazte Oír and Vox had challenged the case's provisional closure. The original dismissal cited insufficient indications that the officers had assisted Puigdemont's departure. The Audiencia Provincial's Seventh Section later found that the facts could potentially fall within Article 408. That ruling reopened judicial scrutiny, but did not establish criminal liability.
The police deployment around Puigdemont's appearance was described as a containment operation intended to detain him. Contemporary reporting also said two officers were arrested at different points on suspicion of helping him flee. The subsequent proceedings concern three agents, extending the judicial examination beyond those initial arrests. Article 408 addresses public officials who intentionally fail to promote the prosecution of offences or their perpetrators. Here, the alleged omission was tied to the outstanding national arrest warrant.
The procedural picture shifted after Supreme Court magistrate Pablo Llarena ordered the national warrants for Puigdemont to be left without effect. He also ordered the warrants for Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig to be lifted. Judge Coscollola then asked the prosecution and defence to state their positions on a possible dismissal, and invited the popular accusers to do the same, citing a potential subsequent loss of the case's object. The question is whether proceedings over an alleged failure to enforce a warrant can continue after that warrant is no longer operative. This renewed review does not undo the earlier appellate ruling, but the case's continuation remains unsettled.
The case forms part of the wider legal dispute over Spain's amnesty structure for the Catalan independence conflict. The Supreme Court maintained the cancellation of the arrest orders while applying the Constitutional Court's amnesty doctrine to the embezzlement issue, a development that could affect the legal basis of the officers' case. The proceedings have not resulted in a trial or final judgment. Disputes over amnesty laws and the role of Spanish courts have also featured in a challenge by Oriol Junqueras and other former officials to the Tribunal de Cuentas, detailed in this related report.
Article 408 provides the legal structure for examining whether public officials intentionally failed to pursue an offence or its alleged perpetrator. The Audiencia Provincial treated the provision as potentially applicable, not as proof that the officers committed a crime. Whether the case proceeds will depend on the investigating court's consideration of the parties' submissions and the effect of the arrest warrants' changed status.
