Spain’s Supreme Court has denied amnesty to Carles Puigdemont on malversación charges. Judge Pablo Llarena says the arrest warrant stands. The Constitutional Court will have the final say.
Spain’s Supreme Court has again denied amnesty to Carles Puigdemont, keeping the arrest warrant against the former Catalan president in place. Judge Pablo Llarena rejected applying the amnesty law to the malversación charges, arguing that the case involves personal financial benefit. This decision leaves Puigdemont’s legal situation unchanged, despite political pressure and recent European court decisions. According to ARA and EFE, Llarena’s main argument is that personal benefit excludes the case from amnesty.
Puigdemont’s defense pointed to a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice (TJUE), which found no conflict between the Spanish amnesty law and EU law, as grounds for amnesty. Llarena disagreed, saying the European court only addressed the impact on EU financial interests, not personal enrichment. He maintains that using public funds for the independence process puts the case outside the amnesty law’s scope. EFE reports that the Supreme Court’s position has not changed, even after the new European context.
The Constitutional Court is scheduled to begin reviewing the first amnesty appeals on September 22, 2026, with Jordi Turull’s case set as the initial test.
In his ruling, Llarena acknowledged that the TJUE decision removes the argument about EU financial interests, but he doubled down on the issue of personal benefit. He argues that using public money for the independence push amounts to a financial gain for those involved, which the amnesty law does not cover. Llarena also noted that the Constitutional Court’s recent support for the amnesty law does not address the Supreme Court’s interpretation of personal benefit, leaving that question unresolved. ARA and EFE report that the debate now moves to constitutional and criminal law interpretation in Spain.
Puigdemont’s lawyers also asked for the arrest warrant to be lifted, arguing that the case should be closed or moved to Catalan courts, and that double jeopardy applies because of parallel proceedings in the Tribunal de Cuentas. Llarena rejected these arguments, saying that none of the conditions for lifting the warrant—case closure, double jeopardy, or amnesty—have been met. He emphasized that his decision does not make the measures permanent, but keeps things as they are until circumstances change. According to ARA, legal experts say the Supreme Court could reconsider the arrest order after a clear ruling from the Constitutional Court, but for now, the warrant remains active.
Attempts to move the case to the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña or Barcelona courts have also failed. Llarena dismissed these requests, as well as the claim that Puigdemont is being prosecuted twice for the same acts, given the ongoing financial investigation in the Tribunal de Cuentas involving more than thirty former Catalan officials.
The Tribunal de Cuentas has announced plans to apply amnesty to 35 individuals involved in the 'procés' spending cases, following the TJUE’s clarification that EU funds were not affected. This move signals a differentiated approach among Spanish judicial bodies regarding the scope of the amnesty law.
La Voz de Galicia
This legal standoff comes as Spain’s political climate remains tense over the unresolved Catalan issue. The Supreme Court’s stance contrasts with the government’s push for reconciliation and the Constitutional Court’s recent support for the amnesty law. The outcome now depends on the Constitutional Court’s review of appeals from those convicted or charged in the “procés” case. As seen in other high-profile cases, such as the government’s handling of the Ceuta border crisis, judicial decisions continue to shape Spain’s political reality beyond the courtroom.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant amnesty to Puigdemont highlights the ongoing power struggle between Spain’s judiciary and political institutions. By focusing on personal financial benefit, Llarena has set a high bar for future amnesty applications related to malversación. For now, Puigdemont remains in legal limbo, and the courts show no sign of yielding to political or external pressure. The question of amnesty for the “procés” remains in the hands of the courts, not politicians.
