Carles Puigdemont shifts focus to the financial impact of delayed amnesty. He invokes a European court case, raising the prospect of Spain facing compensation claims. The move intensifies pressure on Spanish institutions.
Carles Puigdemont has escalated his campaign for the swift implementation of Spain’s amnesty law by highlighting the potential financial consequences for the country. The former Catalan president, together with his legal team, is now leveraging a European judicial precedent to argue that Spain could be liable for compensation if the amnesty process for those involved in the 2017 independence push continues to stall.
The shift in strategy comes after Puigdemont’s representatives, including lawyer Gonzalo Boye and ex-councillors Toni Comín and Lluís Puig, filed a complaint with the European Commission. They allege that the Tribunal de Cuentas is obstructing the closure of cases related to the funding of the Catalan independence referendum. In their submission to Brussels, they warn that the Spanish Supreme Court could face claims for damages if it persists in delaying the application of the amnesty to pro-independence politicians.
Central to their argument is the Köbler case, a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice. In that case, Austrian professor Gerhard Köbler sought recognition of his full teaching career across EU countries for a salary supplement. The court established that a member state can be held responsible for damages caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to its highest courts. Although Köbler did not receive compensation, the judgment set principles that Puigdemont’s team believes are directly relevant to the current Spanish situation.
Puigdemont has publicly warned that Spain risks economic penalties if judicial authorities continue to delay the amnesty. He referenced recent EU actions against Hungary and Poland, where the European Union withheld funds over rule-of-law concerns. According to Puigdemont, Spain remains the only major EU economy still receiving recovery funds, and any breach of EU law could jeopardize this status.
The complaint to the European Commission urges the institution to pressure Spain to accelerate the amnesty process and, if necessary, to impose sanctions. The Köbler precedent is cited as a legal basis for potential compensation claims, with the European court’s ruling stating that states must compensate individuals for damages resulting from violations of EU law, regardless of which state body is responsible.
As the legal and political standoff continues, the possibility of financial claims against Spain adds a new dimension to the debate over the amnesty law. The argument hinges on whether the Supreme Court’s actions could be seen as a sufficiently serious breach of EU law conferring rights on individuals. Puigdemont has indicated that the outcome remains uncertain, but the threat of economic repercussions is now firmly part of the discussion.
This development follows earlier disputes involving Catalan leaders and Spanish judicial bodies. For example, a recent case saw Oriol Junqueras and other former officials challenge the Tribunal de Cuentas’ stance on the amnesty law, arguing that it ignored a key EU ruling—a situation detailed in this related report.
In the broader context, the Köbler case remains a reference point in European law for state liability when national courts breach EU obligations. While the Spanish government has not publicly responded to the latest complaint, the issue underscores the complex intersection of national judicial processes and European legal standards. The outcome could have significant implications for Spain’s finances and its relationship with EU institutions, especially as the country continues to navigate the aftermath of the Catalan independence crisis and the evolving landscape of European law.
