The political and legal balance around Spain’s amnesty law has shifted through a series of European and domestic court decisions. In July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that EU law does not in principle prevent Spain from adopting an amnesty intended to ease institutional and political tensions and promote reconciliation. The ruling did not automatically grant amnesty to every defendant: national courts must still assess whether individual conduct falls within the exclusions, including terrorism involving grave and intentional violations of human rights.
That distinction has proved basic to the case of former Catalan president and Junts leader Carles Puigdemont. On 19 October, investigating magistrate Pablo Llarena of Spain’s Supreme Court, the Tribunal Supremo, ruled that the amnesty applied to Puigdemont and confirmed the lifting of the domestic arrest warrant against him. The same decision covered former Catalan ministers Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig. Llarena applied to Puigdemont’s case the reasoning the Constitutional Court had set out in its interpretation of the amnesty law on embezzlement.
The 19 October order removed a major immediate obstacle to Puigdemont’s return, but it did not formally end the proceedings. Llarena said the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber still had to decide on the definitive extinction of criminal liability and dismissal, stressing that his order did not amount to “the conclusion of a pending summary subject to certain appeals.” Puigdemont has reportedly said he will await the chamber’s final decision before returning and has not set a date. The distinction matters politically: the warrants have been lifted, but the final procedural step remains outstanding.
The CJEU’s July ruling has also shaped other cases. On 23 October, the Audiencia Nacional definitively shelved the terrorism proceedings against 12 alleged members of the Comités de Defensa de la República (CDR), finding that the acts attributed to them did not constitute “grave, intentional violations of human rights.” The decision allowed the amnesty to extinguish their criminal liability without a trial. It shows that the European court established a structure, while Spanish courts remain responsible for applying the law to the facts of each case.
For Junts, the October ruling is a impressive judicial gain, but the case is not fully resolved. Secretary-general Jordi Turull called it “a new victory for independence” while acknowledging that the amnesty process remained incomplete for Puigdemont, Comín and Lluís Puig. The gap between the lifting of arrest warrants and final dismissal leaves the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber with a decisive role in determining the next legal step.
The political consequences reach beyond the court proceedings. Junts remains a basic parliamentary partner for the government led by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, even as it has described its break with the PSOE as final. The recognition of Catalan in European institutions and the transfer of migration powers to the Generalitat remain among the disputes Junts has identified. Government initiatives, including housing measures and a reform of dependency policies, as well as votes on regional financing and the national budget, still depend on support from Junts and other minority parties. A court ruling can change the political climate, but it cannot secure votes or settle those negotiations.
The government also faces domestic judicial pressure, including investigations involving people close to Sánchez, as the political calendar advances. Ministers have criticized what they see as judicial overreach, and the dispute has become part of a wider contest over institutional trust and political accountability. Meanwhile, Junts faces competition in Catalonia, with polling cited in the political debate suggesting gains for Aliança Catalana and raising questions about Junts’ strategy.
The amnesty was a central demand of Junts and Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) during negotiations over Sánchez’s investiture. The dispute has since moved through Spain’s courts and the CJEU, with the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court addressing domestic questions along the way. The institutions have considered how the amnesty fits EU law and how its statutory exclusions apply to individual defendants. The July European ruling supported the general possibility of Spain’s amnesty structure; the October decisions show that its practical reach still depends on national judicial assessments. That developing legal picture could affect the government’s relations with Junts, but the parliamentary majority still depends on separate political negotiations and votes.
