The European Court of Justice (TJUE) was due to issue two rulings on Spain's amnesty law on July 16. The cases concerned the law's compatibility with European rules, including questions about terrorism and the protection of EU financial interests. Whatever the outcome, an EU ruling would not itself lift the national arrest order against Carles Puigdemont. That decision remained in the hands of Spain's courts.
The TJUE was considering preliminary questions referred by two Spanish courts. The Tribunal de Cuentas raised concerns about the law's effect on EU financial interests in connection with the 2017 Catalan referendum, while the Audiencia Nacional asked whether the amnesty could apply to terrorism charges linked to the Comités de Defensa de la República (CDR). The court's Advocate General, Dean Spielmann, had issued a non-binding opinion supporting the law's compatibility with EU rules. The final judgment was a separate matter.
As Vozpópuli reported, the Supreme Court arrest order issued by investigating judge Pablo Llarena was not automatically affected by the European proceedings. Puigdemont's appeal to Spain's Constitutional Court challenged the Supreme Court's refusal to apply the amnesty to his case. The basic domestic question was how the law's exclusion for embezzlement involving personal financial gain applied to the alleged misuse of public funds.
That distinction proved decisive in later Spanish court proceedings. The Supreme Court had initially treated the alleged personal benefit as a reason the malversación charge fell outside the amnesty. In its later interpretation, following Constitutional Court doctrine, the benefit could consist of being released from an economic obligation, even if all the money had gone to the referendum. The dispute so turned on what counted as personal benefit under the amnesty, not solely on the law's compatibility with EU law.
Puigdemont appealed to the Constitutional Court in July 2025, challenging the Supreme Court's refusal to apply the amnesty and asking for the national warrant to be suspended while his appeal was considered. The request was denied in January. The Constitutional Court, led by Cándido Conde-Pumpido, had postponed deliberations pending the European court's ruling, which could inform its assessment. The later warrant decision, but, was made by Spanish judicial authorities under domestic law.
On October 6, 2026, investigating judge Pablo Llarena provisionally lifted the national search-and-arrest orders for Puigdemont. The orders also covered former Catalan ministers Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig. On October 19, the Spanish Supreme Court said Llarena had confirmed the decision and rejected a reform appeal brought by the popular prosecution represented by Vox. The ruling relied on the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the amnesty's application to malversación. It was not an automatic consequence of a TJUE judgment.
The lifting of the warrants did not amount to a final dismissal or formally grant Puigdemont amnesty. The Supreme Court said the order concerned the arrest warrants and did not resolve the pending proceedings or replace the decision still required from the competent criminal body on extinction of liability and dismissal. Llarena likewise specified that lifting the orders did not conclude a case still subject to appeals. In practical terms, the national detention orders were no longer in force, while the underlying legal process remained unresolved.
Spain's amnesty law was designed to address cases arising from the Catalan independence process, including proceedings following the 2017 referendum. The decisions show the distinct roles of European and Spanish courts: the TJUE addresses questions of EU law, while Spanish judicial authorities decide how the amnesty applies in individual proceedings and whether national arrest orders remain in force. Details of a separate Canary Islands case are available in this report on judicial compensation for staff stress.
