The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its ruling on 16 July 2026, clarifying how EU law applies to Spain’s amnesty law in terrorism-related cases linked to the Catalan independence movement. The judgment did not decide whether Carles Puigdemont should benefit from amnesty for alleged misuse of public funds, or malversación. His case instead depends on how the Spanish courts interpret that offence and the domestic arrest warrants.
On terrorism, the CJEU held that EU law does not automatically preclude a national amnesty, provided domestic courts exclude acts amounting to serious intentional violations of Fundamental Rights. It also concluded that extinguishing criminal liability under the amnesty would not undermine the practical effectiveness of Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism. Applying that interpretation, the Audiencia Nacional later archived the terrorism case against twelve alleged members of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic (CDR), finding that the alleged conduct did not constitute grave, intentional violations of human rights.
The separate legal dispute over Puigdemont centers on malversación. Spain’s Supreme Court had refused to apply the amnesty to the offence attributed to him and other leaders of the Catalan independence process, reasoning that the alleged conduct involved a “purpose of enrichment.” The Constitutional Court’s 6 October 2026 ruling in former Catalan minister Dolors Bassa’s case shifted the legal field. It found that her right to effective judicial protection had been violated and ordered a new decision declaring her malversación conviction covered by the amnesty. Five Constitutional Court judges dissented.
The Supreme Court subsequently applied the amnesty to the malversación convictions of Bassa, Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva and Jordi Turull, while criticizing what it called unnecessary intervention by the Constitutional Court. Puigdemont’s proceedings remained distinct: investigating magistrate Pablo Llarena, rather than the trial chamber handling those convictions, was responsible for his case and the associated warrants.
On 19 October, Llarena confirmed the cancellation of Spain’s domestic arrest warrants for Puigdemont, Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig, applying the Constitutional Court’s doctrine from the Bassa case to the malversación attributed to them. The decision removed the domestic warrants but did not finally resolve every aspect of the proceedings or guarantee Puigdemont’s immediate return from Waterloo. It did, but, remove a major legal obstacle to his return. The Spanish judiciary’s account of Llarena’s decision said he considered the Constitutional Court’s doctrine on amnesty for malversación applicable to the three men.
In November, EU Advocate General Dean Spielmann endorsed the basic provisions of the amnesty law, saying Catalonia’s independence efforts did not threaten EU finances and that the law met European Court of Human Rights standards. He also raised concerns about the two-month deadline imposed on Spanish judges to decide amnesty cases. An Advocate General’s opinion is not binding on the CJEU, though it can inform the court’s deliberations.
The rulings have implications beyond Puigdemont’s case. The CJEU’s judgment established the EU-law parameters for amnesty in terrorism proceedings, while separate Spanish constitutional and Supreme Court decisions have shaped the treatment of malversación and the domestic warrants. These legal developments may affect the political relationship between Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government and Junts, but do not, by themselves, determine whether parliamentary cooperation will resume.
The legal battle unfolds amid continuing tensions between Spanish institutions and regional leaders. It echoes other judicial controversies, including the government’s response to the Badajoz court’s decision involving David Sánchez. For more on how legal decisions are shaping political dynamics, see the report on the government’s defense of David Sánchez after the Badajoz court ruling.
