The European Court of Justice (TJUE) ruled in July 2026 that EU law does not automatically prevent Spain’s amnesty law from covering terrorism-related conduct. The decision followed a preliminary reference from Spain’s Audiencia Nacional concerning 12 members of the Committees for the Defense of the Republic (CDR). The amnesty law, which came into force in June 2024, was a basic condition for ERC and Junts’ support for Pedro Sánchez’s re-election and has benefited more than 300 people linked to the Catalan independence process.
The CDR case arose from the Guardia Civil’s 2019 “Operación Judas.” The defendants were arrested over alleged plans for violent actions against buildings in Catalonia in response to the Supreme Court’s “procés” judgment. The Audiencia Nacional suspended proceedings in September 2024, shortly before trial, while it sought the EU court’s interpretation of the counter-terrorism structure. In its ruling, the TJUE held that EU law “does not preclude a national amnesty law” adopted to reduce institutional and political tensions and promote reconciliation, provided the law excludes acts involving serious, intentional violations of Fundamental Rights.
The European ruling did not require Spain to amnesty every terrorism-related charge. It left national judges to assess the specific conduct and determine whether it meets the threshold for exclusion, taking account of the EU counter-terrorism directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. On 23 October 2026, the Audiencia Nacional applied that interpretation and permanently dismissed the terrorism case against the 12 CDR defendants. The court found that the alleged conduct did not meet the exclusion threshold and that their criminal liability had been extinguished under the amnesty law. They will not face trial in that case.
The TJUE’s ruling addressed a separate question involving the Tribunal de Cuentas, which examines financial liability arising from alleged public spending connected with the 2017 independence referendum and related international activities. The proceedings concerned 35 former Catalan officials, including Carles Puigdemont. Artur Mas and Oriol Junqueras were also among them. The Tribunal de Cuentas later applied the amnesty to Puigdemont and 34 other defendants in that financial case. That decision concerns financial liability and is distinct from the criminal terrorism proceedings against the CDR members.
The Supreme Court had refused to apply the amnesty to Puigdemont and Junqueras in relation to alleged misuse of public funds, maintaining that the alleged conduct fell within statutory exclusions concerning harm to the EU’s financial interests or personal enrichment. The TJUE’s ruling and the Tribunal de Cuentas decision do not, by themselves, resolve Puigdemont’s separate malversación case. The Supreme Court’s position on that case remains consequential, including because the alleged enrichment ground is distinct from the EU financial-interest question.
Carles Puigdemont welcomed the Audiencia Nacional’s decision for the CDR defendants, calling it “a great piece of news, which comes very late and after unjust suffering.” The ruling matters politically in the wider dispute over the Catalan independence process and the amnesty, but it is not a final judicial determination in Puigdemont’s own criminal proceedings. Investigating judge Pablo Llarena later lifted the national detention orders for Puigdemont, as well as those for Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig, information from reporting on the proceedings.
Earlier, the TJUE’s Advocate General issued a non-binding opinion supporting the Spanish law, concluding that it did not violate EU terrorism directives or rules on financial interests. The European Commission also indicated that amnesties for terrorism offences without fatalities or injuries do not necessarily breach EU rules. The TJUE cannot annul Spain’s law outright, but its interpretation of EU law guides national courts applying the law in individual cases.
The different outcomes in the CDR, financial-liability and malversación proceedings show why the European ruling did not settle every dispute over the amnesty. The Constitutional Court has upheld the law in 19 rulings, rejecting challenges from the PP and regional leaders. Appeals by prominent independence figures concerning the Supreme Court’s decisions remain a separate part of the legal process.
The dispute shows how Spanish and European judicial systems interact. It also recalls other high-profile court decisions in Spain, such as the Málaga court’s ruling on artists’ rights, in which Mijas was ordered to compensate an artist for unauthorized changes to a sculpture. Both cases show how higher courts shape legal outcomes in Spain.
The TJUE’s interpretation sets a structure for Spanish courts assessing amnesty claims, while leaving each outcome dependent on the case’s legal and factual circumstances. The CDR dismissal shows how that structure applies to terrorism-related allegations. Puigdemont’s separate case still turns on the Supreme Court’s treatment of the alleged misuse of public funds and the relevant statutory exclusions.
