Spain's Constitutional Court is expected to extend the amnesty to embezzlement. The decision could remove the main legal barrier to Carles Puigdemont's return before the elections.
At 10.30 on Tuesday, Spain's Constitutional Court began examining appeals that could decide whether Carles Puigdemont can return without facing arrest. The cases concern Jordi Turull, the secretary general of Junts, and Dolors Bassa, a former regional minister. Both appeals stem from the criminal proceedings that followed Catalonia's independence referendum on 1 October 2017.
The court is considering whether the amnesty covers the embezzlement convictions and proceedings linked to the leaders of the 'procés'. If the judges approve that reading, as expected, the Supreme Court could lift the arrest order against Puigdemont, the former Catalan president.
That is the immediate issue.
The ruling could determine whether the legal barrier to Puigdemont's return remains in place. It could also bring that return forward to before the elections scheduled for 29 November.
The draft interpretation distinguishes between public spending causally linked to the independence movement and conduct aimed at personal enrichment. Only the latter is expected to fall outside the amnesty framework.
Two draft judgments are before the full bench. One concerns Turull. The other concerns Bassa. The judges must decide whether to endorse the amnesty for both applicants or issue a ruling focused only on Bassa's case.
The available information points to a ruling that would reject the Supreme Court's position. It would establish that malversación is also covered by the amnesty in these cases. The decisions would formally apply to Turull and Bassa, but their legal reasoning could become a doctrine for other people convicted or prosecuted in connection with the 'procés'.
The proposal in the Turull case was prepared under the scrutiny of José María Macías. He has stopped trying to change the text further. He has proposed that any amendments be made by another judge or by him after the text is adapted to the majority's position.
The separate draft concerning Dolors Bassa was prepared by Constitutional Court president Cándido Conde-Pumpido. Reports say that both drafts favour applying the amnesty, while the Bassa draft is more forceful in criticising the Supreme Court's reading of the law.
The dispute is about the reasoning as well as the result. The Supreme Court previously refused to extend the amnesty to malversación. It cited the existence of an economic benefit and the possible effect on the European Union's financial interests.
The Constitutional Court is expected to reject that approach when the spending was tied to organising or promoting the independence movement rather than to private enrichment. That interpretation would set the legal limits of the amnesty law in cases involving public funds.
The decision is not final yet.
Puigdemont's return would not become automatic even if the Constitutional Court approves the interpretation. The Supreme Court would still have to apply it to his case. The arrest order must be lifted before he could return without that immediate risk.
According to reporting by Democrata, both the public prosecutor's office and Spain's State Attorney's Office support applying the amnesty to the embezzlement issue. If the doctrine is applied to Puigdemont, the Supreme Court could remove the internal arrest order. That is the step that would take away the main legal barrier to his return.
The timetable is tight. A Constitutional Court decision followed promptly by action from the Supreme Court could create a route for Puigdemont to return before 29 November.
If the second step does not happen quickly, the Constitutional Court's ruling would not remove the order on its own. The decision would have to be published. The Supreme Court would then need to apply it. The warrant would still have to be formally lifted.
Those steps matter.
Ángeles Vázquez and Ernesto Ekaizer have reported on the developments, which remain subject to live updates. Their reporting focuses on the order of events rather than a completed return. First comes the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the amnesty. The Supreme Court's response would follow.
The central question is now clear. The Constitutional Court is expected to extend the amnesty to malversación. The Supreme Court controls the practical consequence that matters most for Puigdemont: whether the arrest order stays in force.
That makes the ruling a major legal moment for the former president's immediate freedom of movement. The final outcome still depends on both courts.
