The European Union’s highest court has ruled that Spain’s amnesty law can apply to 12 members of the Comités de Defensa de la República (CDR) facing terrorism charges related to the ‘procés’. Delivered by the Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) in Luxembourg on 16 July 2026, the decision answered legal questions referred by Spain’s Audiencia Nacional. The court interpreted Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism to mean that EU rules do not automatically bar a national amnesty for terrorism-related conduct, provided the acts did not intentionally cause serious violations of Fundamental Rights.
The ruling followed questions from Spanish judges about whether Spain’s amnesty law, which took effect in 2024, conflicted with European law. The Audiencia Nacional had suspended its application to the CDR members while awaiting the Luxembourg court’s interpretation. Provisional allegations against the defendants included membership of a terrorist organization, offenses involving explosives and attempted destruction. The proceedings stemmed from the Guardia Civil’s 2019 “Operación Judas,” which investigated alleged preparations for disruptive or violent actions against buildings in Catalonia, including alleged plans to occupy the Catalan Parliament. The allegations had not been tested at trial.
The TJUE’s interpretation distinguished terrorism-related conduct involving intentional grave breaches of the right to life or the prohibition of torture from conduct that did not meet that threshold. It also addressed whether the amnesty was limited to acts committed during a defined period and in the context of Catalonia’s independence process. The EU court did not itself close the Spanish case; it left the law’s application to the Audiencia Nacional. The court also considered how Spanish law defines the conduct covered. The interpretation aligns with the opinion issued by the EU’s Advocate General in November, who concluded that the Spanish government’s amnesty does not violate the EU’s terrorism directive or the Union’s financial interests.
On 23 October 2026, the Audiencia Nacional’s Third Section of the Criminal Chamber applied the amnesty and ordered the free dismissal and archiving of the proceedings against all 12 defendants. The decision followed a request from the public prosecutor’s office that they benefit from the law. The judges concluded that the conduct, although provisionally classified as possible terrorism, did not amount to intentional grave violations of human rights. The ruling ended the terrorism proceedings before trial; it did not establish whether the alleged acts occurred. The decision was signed by Francisco Vieira, Jesús Eduardo Gutiérrez and Fermín Echarri. The defendants are Eduardo Bravo, Esther García, Sonia Pascual, Queralt Casoliva, Germinal Tomás, Alexis Codina, Jordi Ros, Rafael Joaquín Delgado, Ferran Jolis, Xavier Buigas, David Budria and Clara Borrero.
The European Commission had previously indicated that an amnesty for terrorism offenses would not necessarily conflict with EU law if the conduct caused no deaths or injuries and involved no mistreatment. The TJUE’s ruling provided the structure for the national court’s case-specific decision rather than establishing an unconditional amnesty for every terrorism offense. The case’s legal and political context includes wider debate over judicial independence and political influence in Spain, including the case in which the former Supreme Court president warned of political pressure on judges.
Spain’s amnesty law was introduced as part of efforts to reduce political and institutional tensions following the Catalan independence crisis. It excludes terrorism offenses involving intentional serious harm to life or torture, in line with the EU-law structure considered by the courts. The outcome puts the TJUE’s interpretation into practice in charges connected to the independence conflict: the Audiencia Nacional concluded that the alleged conduct fell within the amnesty’s scope and archived the case. It shows how national courts apply EU legal standards to individual cases, amid continuing debate over the boundaries of political reconciliation in member states.
