The Constitutional Court has applied Spain’s amnesty law to the embezzlement offence linked to the procés. The ruling conflicts with the Supreme Court’s interpretation and opens a legal route for Carles Puigdemont to return to Spain. Cándido Conde-Pumpido says the court had to apply the law in line with its constitutional meaning.
Speaking to EL PAÍS, the president of the Constitutional Court described the outcome as constitutional review rather than a political choice. He rejected the claim that the Supreme Court acted improperly. In his account, the Supreme Court followed a legally consistent interpretation of its own, but the Constitutional Court later decided it was not the most appropriate one.
The Constitutional Court approved its interpretation of the amnesty by seven votes to five, with five judges issuing dissenting opinions. The split reflects the depth of judicial disagreement over the law’s scope.
This distinction is basic to the dispute. Conde-Pumpido argues that changing a judicial ruling does not imply misconduct by the judges who issued it. The case turns on how the amnesty law should be read and which interpretation complies with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court also ordered the Supreme Court to reconsider the case of former Catalan official Dolors Bassa. It found that the exclusion for cases involving “personal enrichment” had been interpreted too broadly. The court’s published account says personal enrichment is distinct from the property-related element formally present in embezzlement. The exclusion is intended to cover private corruption unrelated to financing the independence process, rather than automatically remove every embezzlement offence from the amnesty.
The ruling puts Puigdemont’s return within reach. It describes no political agreement and guarantees no immediate return; instead, it removes the interpretation that had kept the embezzlement conviction outside the amnesty structure.
Accusations of partisanship have followed the decision. Conde-Pumpido rejects them and says judges must accept that their decisions may later be changed. He argues that challenging the Constitution also means challenging democracy.
After notification of the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Supreme Court has five days to receive allegations and arguments from the parties. Judge Pablo Llarena has meanwhile temporarily lifted the national arrest warrants for Puigdemont, Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig. That measure does not itself finally apply the amnesty or end the criminal proceedings.
An earlier report on Puigdemont covered the political and judicial background, focusing on uncertainty surrounding his return. This ruling changes that legal position by establishing the Constitutional Court’s preferred reading of the amnesty law in the malversation case.
Conde-Pumpido also rejects the term lawfare for Spain’s judicial conflicts. He says the country faces the judicialisation of politics through organisations dedicated to that purpose. He argues that European countries generally do not allow political parties to take part directly in criminal proceedings.
His comments also address the crisis in Ceuta. Conde-Pumpido considers rejection at the border constitutional. He says anyone who crosses illegally from Africa into the European Union must be returned immediately without further procedures. He says the European Court of Human Rights and Spain’s Constitutional Court have endorsed that approach.
The interview links the amnesty dispute to the state’s authority at its external border. In both matters, Conde-Pumpido presents the court’s role as enforcing constitutional standards instead of settling political disputes.
The Constitutional Court has displaced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of malversation under the amnesty law. Puigdemont’s return is legally possible under that reading, although the amnesty’s final status and related legal issues still depend on later Supreme Court decisions. The change affects prominent procés cases while leaving the Supreme Court’s conduct formally defended.
