The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on 16 July 2026 that EU law does not, in principle, prevent Spain from adopting an amnesty for conduct linked to the Catalan independence movement. The judgment addressed questions referred by Spain’s Tribunal de Cuentas, which oversees public accountability, and the Audiencia Nacional. It set out an EU-law structure for national courts but did not itself decide every pending case or automatically end domestic proceedings.
The questions concerned whether the amnesty could harm the EU’s financial interests by removing liability for the alleged misuse of public funds, and whether it was compatible with EU counter-terrorism rules. The CJEU accepted that an amnesty may pursue objectives such as reducing institutional conflict and promoting reconciliation. It also held that national courts must exclude acts involving intentionally serious violations of human rights. The court objected to the law’s two-month deadline for judges to resolve applications.
The measure, Organic Law 1/2024, was approved by Spain’s Congress on 30 May 2024 by 177 votes to 172 and entered into force on 11 June. It covers acts associated with the Catalan independence lead between November 2011 and November 2023, including activity connected with the 2017 referendum and the subsequent unilateral declaration of independence. Its implementation has remained contentious, particularly over whether alleged misuse of public funds qualifies for amnesty.
Carles Puigdemont’s embezzlement-related case illustrates the distinction between the CJEU’s interpretation of EU law and Spanish courts’ application of the national statute. In July 2024, Supreme Court investigating magistrate Pablo Llarena declined to apply the amnesty to the allegations, reasoning that the law’s exclusion for cases involving personal financial benefit applied. Puigdemont’s defence has rejected the claim that the spending amounted to personal enrichment, arguing that it was tied to the political project rather than private gain. The Luxembourg judgment did not determine whether Puigdemont met the Spanish law’s conditions for amnesty.
The Spanish Constitutional Court later rejected the Supreme Court’s restrictive interpretation of personal benefit. Its interpretation distinguished personal enrichment from public expenditure incurred to organize the referendum: “Paying with public funds the expenses of the consultation does not allow to affirm, without something more, that its promoters have enriched themselves by not having paid them out of their own pocket.” On 19 October 2026, the Supreme Court lifted national arrest warrants for Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Lluís Puig. Further formal steps in their amnesty cases remained pending.
The terrorism-law question concerned 12 alleged members of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic (CDR), who had faced prosecution over actions following the 2017 referendum. After the CJEU ruling, the Audiencia Nacional applied the amnesty and definitively shelved the case. Its Third Section held that the alleged conduct, although provisionally classified as terrorist offences, did not constitute “grave, intentional violations of human rights” that would place it outside the amnesty. The decision extinguished the defendants’ criminal liability without a trial.
The amnesty has been reported as applying to approximately 400 people connected with the 2017 independence episode, including politicians, public officials and activists. They include former Catalan presidents Carles Puigdemont and Artur Mas, former vice-president Oriol Junqueras and former minister Toni Comín, as well as dozens of former officials accused of misusing public funds. The figure is an approximate implementation total: each case still requires action by the competent Spanish court.
The court’s ruling also clarified the limits of what it decided. It rejected the general argument that the amnesty necessarily harms the EU’s financial interests, while leaving Spanish judges to determine whether the law applies to individual defendants and whether particular allegations meet its exclusions. The July judgment so did not, by itself, dismiss every prosecution or remove every arrest warrant. Its effect depended on subsequent decisions by the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and other domestic judges.
The amnesty was a basic political agreement of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government and a condition in negotiations with the Catalan parties ERC and Junts. The CJEU’s decision provides guidance on the interaction between national amnesty legislation and EU law; Spanish courts retain responsibility for applying the statute to individual cases. The distinction is basic to the continuing proceedings over public funds and alleged terrorism.
