The president of the Generalitat, Salvador Illa, has called for the immediate enforcement of the amnesty law after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that EU law does not automatically bar the measure. Speaking from the Palau de la Generalitat, Illa said the ruling removes any remaining legal uncertainty and leaves no room for hesitation among those responsible for applying the law. He argued that the amnesty is now part of Spain's legal structure and must be implemented in full.
The CJEU issued its ruling on 16 July 2026, addressing the law's compatibility with Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism. The court held that EU law does not preclude a national amnesty when domestic courts can identify conduct excluded from its scope. It also concluded that extinguishing criminal liability does not compromise the directive's practical effectiveness, provided that intentional, serious human-rights violations remain outside the amnesty. The ruling removed a basic EU-law objection but left national judges to assess individual cases; it did not grant blanket immunity in every terrorism-related proceeding.
Illa's statement follows a series of institutional decisions concerning the amnesty. Spain's Constitutional Court endorsed the law's impressive constitutional aspects in June 2025. On 6 October 2026, it ruled in former Catalan minister Dolors Bassa's case that the Supreme Court must issue a new resolution declaring the relevant embezzlement offense amnestied, finding a violation of her right to effective judicial protection. Five dissenting opinions accompanied the decision. The Constitutional Court criticized the Supreme Court's lack of coherence and what it called an unpredictable and contradictory interpretation, showing that questions about the law's application remain contested.
On 20 October, Spain's Supreme Court applied the amnesty to Oriol Junqueras, Dolors Bassa, Jordi Turull and Raül Romeva, extinguishing their criminal liability arising from the *procés* judgment and lifting their disqualification from public office. Government spokesperson Elma Saiz welcomed the decision as the law's application “in its entirety.” The Supreme Court, but, criticized the Constitutional Court's reasoning as unnecessarily grandiloquent and alleged that it intruded on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. These decisions have expanded the politicians' ability to stand for election again while exposing continuing disagreement between Spain's highest courts over how to interpret the statute.
The Catalan leader avoided mentioning specific cases or individuals, focusing instead on the broader goal of restoring political and institutional normality. He said all individuals and political groups affected by the law should be able to participate in Catalonia's future on equal terms, with the same rights and responsibilities. Illa insisted that public authorities must act in the general interest. He said the court's decision paves the way for a new phase based on dialogue and coexistence, moving beyond past divisions.
The law was applied again on 23 October, when the Third Section of the National Court's Criminal Chamber definitively shelved the terrorism case against 12 alleged members of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic, known as the CDR. The defendants had faced potential prison terms of about eight to 11 years in the Operation Judas proceedings, which concerned pro-independence activists. The court found that the conduct under examination did not constitute grave, intentional violations of human rights, allowing the amnesty to extinguish criminal liability without a trial. The ruling applied the CJEU's July interpretation to the defendants' alleged conduct; it did not automatically terminate every case covered by the law.
ERC president Oriol Junqueras welcomed the National Court's decision, saying the activists “should never have been accused of terrorism, pursued, or imprisoned.” That was his political response; the court's ruling rested on its legal assessment of the conduct under the amnesty's limits. The distinction between a terrorism allegation and conduct covered by the law's exclusion for intentional, serious human-rights violations remains basic to how courts apply the measure.
In his address, Illa also linked the normalization of Catalan politics to the region's economic momentum. He highlighted Catalonia's leadership in job creation, investment attraction, public housing development, support for dependent care and scientific research. For Illa, these achievements demonstrate the benefits of stability and responsible governance. He urged all parties to look forward instead of dwelling on past conflicts.
Judicial independence and political influence have been recurring themes in Spain, particularly in debates over high-profile legal reforms. Recent discussion of pressure on the judiciary included concerns raised by the former president of the Supreme Court about political interference in judicial matters. The continuing exchanges between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court underline the institutional stakes as Spanish judges apply the amnesty in individual proceedings.
The amnesty law, designed to address the fallout from the Catalan independence process, has been one of the most contentious legal measures in recent Spanish history. Supporters argue that it is impressive for reconciliation and democratic normalization, while critics question its compatibility with constitutional and European standards. The CJEU ruling settled a basic question about the law's compatibility with EU counter-terrorism rules, but later case-specific decisions and disagreements over their interpretation show that its implementation remains a live legal and political issue.
The Court of Justice of the European Union is the EU institution responsible for interpreting EU law and ensuring its consistent application across member states. Its 16 July ruling addressed the relationship between Spain's amnesty law and Directive 2017/541, leaving national courts to determine whether particular conduct falls within the law's exclusions. The sequence of European and Spanish court decisions shows how EU legal standards interact with national judicial authority as the measure is implemented.
