The complaint was filed with the criminal chamber of Spain's Supreme Court and names Constitutional Court president Cándido Conde-Pumpido and six other magistrates. Hazte Oír alleges prevaricación and, alternatively, usurpation of judicial powers. Libertad Digital and El Debate have independently reported the filing.
The case centres on the Constitutional Court's amparo ruling involving former Catalan minister Dolors Bassa. The ruling found that the amnesty could apply to malversación and ordered the Supreme Court to issue a new decision. Hazte Oír says the Constitutional Court went beyond checking whether rights had been breached and entered territory reserved for the ordinary criminal courts.
The decision affects Oriol Junqueras, who remains disqualified because of his malversación conviction. It also concerns Carles Puigdemont and former ministers Toni Comín and Lluís Puig, who are being prosecuted for the same offence after remaining outside Spain. Later court decisions will determine the outcome in each case.
Hazte Oír wants the Supreme Court to add the full Constitutional Court judgment, the separate opinions signed by the five conservative magistrates who opposed it, and relevant Supreme Court rulings. That material, the association argues, would let investigators establish the facts and assess the role of each person named in the complaint.
The association bases its argument on Article 54 of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court. The provision says that, when deciding an amparo appeal, the court must limit itself to deciding whether the applicant's rights or freedoms were breached, then preserve or restore those rights. It must not add other considerations about the actions of judicial bodies.
That boundary is basic to Hazte Oír's complaint. The association says criminal jurisdiction belongs to the courts assigned by law, while the Tribunal Supremo is the highest judicial body in every jurisdiction except constitutional guarantees. In its view, ordering amnesty for malversación went beyond ruling on rights. It interfered with the Supreme Court's handling of the criminal case and told the ordinary criminal courts how to apply the Amnesty Law to a specific offence.
Hazte Oír also says it will continue pursuing the case. Its representatives argue that calling elections would neither erase responsibility nor end their court actions.
The Constitutional Court took the opposite view of the Supreme Court's approach. Its judgment says refusing amnesty for the procés embezzlement departed from the spirit and purpose of the Amnesty Law. Information from El Confidencial, a report linked to Conde-Pumpido described the Supreme Court's interpretation as expansive and at odds with the law's purpose.
The law excludes the diversion of public funds when it involves personal enrichment of a patrimonial nature. The Supreme Court had found that condition met because public money, rather than the politicians' own funds, financed the independence process.
The Constitutional Court rejected that reasoning. It said personal enrichment cannot automatically be equated with the enrichment inherent in every act of malversación. Its published reasoning reads the exclusion narrowly: saving one's own money because public funds financed the referendum does not, by itself, necessarily amount to personal enrichment.
In the Constitutional Court's reasoning, the exclusion was designed to keep private corruption outside the amnesty while distinguishing forms of embezzlement linked to financing the secessionist process. The court also rejected the Supreme Court's assessment of a risk of Catalan secession. It cited the procés judgment's conclusion that the attempt had been a mere "ensoñación" with no realistic chance of success.
The court also referred to the judgment of the Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, which found that the European Union's financial interests had not been affected.
This dispute reaches beyond a procedural detail. It asks who has the final word when constitutional rights, criminal convictions and the interpretation of the Amnesty Law meet. A separate judicial dispute over institutional power was reported in another case, but this complaint targets the Constitutional Court itself.
Hazte Oír is seeking an official investigation of the seven judges. Reports also say the association wants interim measures, including a suspension of the Constitutional Court ruling's execution. There have been no reports that the Supreme Court has opened criminal proceedings against the magistrates or ruled on the substance of the complaint.
The filing does not establish that the magistrates committed either alleged offence. It asks the Supreme Court's criminal chamber to investigate that possibility, while the Constitutional Court judgment remains the basis for the amnesty interpretation it adopted.
The immediate issue is jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court opened the way for amnesty in the malversación cases, and Hazte Oír is asking the Supreme Court to decide whether that ruling crossed the line between constitutional review and criminal adjudication.
