After accepting the European Union Court's ruling on Spain's amnesty law, the Partido Popular (PP) has sharpened its criticism of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The party's objection, as described in its response, goes beyond the legal questions considered by the court: it argues that Sánchez negotiated the measure to secure parliamentary support and says that trading political backing for legal benefits for allies undermines public trust in the office of prime minister.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on 16 July 2026 that EU law does not automatically preclude a national amnesty covering terrorism-related conduct. Its interpretation is conditional: Spanish courts must exclude conduct involving grave, intentional violations of human rights. The ruling addressed the law's compatibility with EU counter-terrorism rules, including Directive 2017/541, and concluded that extinguishing criminal liability under an amnesty would not necessarily compromise the directive's practical effectiveness. It did not decide every individual case or determine the amnesty law's overall constitutionality under Spanish law.
That distinction leaves national judges to apply the EU structure to the facts of each case. On 23 October 2026, the Audiencia Nacional's Criminal Chamber, Third Section, applied it in the Operation Judas case, ordering proceedings against 12 alleged members of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic (CDR) permanently closed. The defendants had been investigated on terrorism-related allegations involving plans targeting public buildings in Catalonia after the Spanish Supreme Court's 2019 ruling on the independence process; reported potential prison terms ranged from eight to 11 years. The court concluded that the alleged acts did not constitute grave, intentional violations of human rights and could so fall within the amnesty. The order shows how a domestic court applied the CJEU ruling, not that every terrorism-related case is automatically dismissed.
PP representatives argue that the debate extends beyond the courtroom. They maintain that no president should exchange political power for immunity from prosecution and describe Sánchez's approach as morally unacceptable and a dangerous precedent for Spanish democracy. The party also says political responsibility for the Catalan independence process remains, whatever the courts decide, and characterizes its legacy as a “toxic process.” The amnesty's legal effect, but, depends on how Spanish courts apply its provisions and exclusions in individual proceedings.
The PP, which has challenged the amnesty law before Spain's Constitutional Court and organized public demonstrations against it, argues that the CJEU's ruling is limited in scope. The European court assessed questions of EU law; it did not rule on the Spanish statute's compatibility with the national constitution or endorse its political rationale. The Constitutional Court's review is a separate proceeding, while the application of the CJEU's interpretation to specific defendants remains a matter for Spanish judges.
The development comes amid tensions between Spain's executive and judiciary. Political influence over legal proceedings has been a recurring theme in recent years, including when the former president of the Supreme Court warned about political pressure on the judiciary. The amnesty debate has renewed concerns over separation of powers and the long-term effects of political agreements on Spain's legal and political field.
The amnesty law was introduced as part of negotiations to secure parliamentary backing for Sánchez's government. Supporters present it as a means of reconciliation; critics argue that it weakens the rule of law. The EU ruling resolves neither that political dispute nor the separate question of constitutional validity. Its immediate legal significance is to set the EU-law structure within which Spanish courts assess whether particular conduct is covered by the amnesty.
