At 10:30 on Tuesday, Spain's Constitutional Court began hearing appeals that could determine whether Carles Puigdemont can return without facing arrest. The cases concern Jordi Turull, 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 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. The ruling could determine whether the legal barrier to his return remains in place and whether he can return before the elections scheduled for 29 November.
Two draft judgments are before the full bench: one concerning Turull, the other Bassa. The judges must decide whether to endorse the amnesty for both applicants or issue a ruling focused only on Bassa's case. El Independiente reports that the draft interpretation distinguishes between public spending directly linked to the independence movement and conduct aimed at personal enrichment. Only the latter is expected to fall outside the amnesty structure.
The expected ruling would reject the Supreme Court's position and establish that malversación also falls under the amnesty in these cases. The decisions would formally apply to Turull and Bassa, but their legal reasoning could become doctrine for others convicted or prosecuted in connection with the 'procés'.
The proposal in the Turull case was prepared under the scrutiny of José María Macías, who has stopped trying to amend the text. He has proposed that any changes be made by another judge, or by him once the text is adapted to the majority's position. Constitutional Court president Cándido Conde-Pumpido prepared the separate draft concerning Dolors Bassa. La Razón reports that both drafts favour applying the amnesty, while the Bassa draft criticizes the Supreme Court's reading of the law more forcefully.
The dispute concerns the reasoning as well as the outcome. The Supreme Court previously refused to extend the amnesty to malversación, citing economic benefit and the possible effect on the European Union's financial interests. The Constitutional Court is expected to reject that approach when spending was tied to organising or promoting the independence movement rather than private enrichment. That interpretation would set the legal limits of the amnesty law in cases involving public funds.
The decision is not final. 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, and the arrest order must be lifted before he could return without that immediate risk.
Democrata reports that 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, taking away the basic 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 need to apply it, and the warrant would still have to be formally lifted.
Ángeles Vázquez and Ernesto Ekaizer have reported on the developments, which remain subject to live updates. Their reporting focuses on the sequence of events, not a completed return: first comes the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the amnesty, followed by the Supreme Court's response.
The Constitutional Court is expected to extend the amnesty to malversación, but the Supreme Court controls the practical consequence that matters most for Puigdemont: whether the arrest order stays in force. The ruling is a consequential legal moment for the former president's immediate freedom of movement, with the final outcome depending on both courts.
