Carles Puigdemont has intensified his push for Spain to implement its amnesty law swiftly, pointing to the potential financial consequences for the country. The former Catalan president and his legal team cite a European judicial precedent to argue that Spain could owe compensation if the amnesty process for those involved in the 2017 independence push continues to stall. Spain’s structure, Organic Law 1/2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social normalization in Catalonia, entered into force on 11 June 2024. Its application depends on the relevant court or auditing body deciding whether specific conduct falls within the law and whether any statutory exclusions apply.
The shift in strategy follows a complaint to the European Commission from Puigdemont’s representatives, including lawyer Gonzalo Boye and former councillors Toni Comín and Lluís Puig. They allege that the Tribunal de Cuentas is obstructing the closure of cases related to funding for the Catalan independence referendum. In their submission to Brussels, they warn that the Spanish Supreme Court could face damages claims if it continues to delay applying the amnesty to pro-independence politicians. Filing a complaint prompts an institutional assessment; it does not itself produce a damages award or automatically suspend EU funding.
Their argument centers on the Köbler judgment, Case C-224/01, issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Austrian professor Gerhard Köbler sought recognition of professional experience gained in other EU member states for a salary supplement. The court held that a member state may be liable for damage caused by an EU-law breach attributable to a court ruling at last instance, stating: “The principle whereby a Member State is liable for loss and damage caused to individuals so of breaches of Community law attributable to a court adjudicating at last instance is also applicable.” The doctrine sets a high bar: liability requires a sufficiently serious breach, and Köbler himself received no compensation. The judgment does not establish automatic compensation whenever a national court delays or rejects an EU-law argument.
Puigdemont has publicly warned that Spain risks economic penalties if judicial authorities keep delaying the amnesty. He has cited EU actions involving Hungary and Poland, though those measures follow separate legal tracks. The EU’s rule-of-law conditionality mechanism, which can suspend or reduce payments when rule-of-law breaches affect or seriously risk affecting the Union budget, was used against Hungary. Poland’s Article 7 procedure was later closed. Neither structure creates an automatic financial penalty when a national court takes time to decide an amnesty application.
The complaint asks the European Commission to press Spain to speed up the amnesty process and, if necessary, impose sanctions. It cites the Köbler precedent as a legal basis for potential compensation claims. Any such claim would have to meet the demanding conditions for state liability and proceed through the appropriate legal procedures. Political warnings about financial consequences are not equivalent to a Commission infringement decision, a CJEU damages judgment or a formal suspension of Spain’s recovery funding.
The legal and political standoff also spans separate criminal and accounting proceedings. The Tribunal de Cuentas considered alleged accounting liability linked to public spending on the independence process and related activities. In a later resolution, it found that the expenses at issue fell within the amnesty’s scope and declared the potential accounting liabilities extinguished. The resolution also said it had not been established that the expenditures affected the EU’s financial interests or involved EU-budget funds. That accounting decision does not resolve the separate criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court, where investigating magistrate Pablo Llarena is handling cases involving Puigdemont, Comín and Lluís Puig.
Puigdemont’s outcome so depends on how the amnesty statute is applied in separate proceedings, including criminal cases before the Supreme Court and accounting matters before the Tribunal de Cuentas, as well as constitutional review. His team’s legal question is whether the Supreme Court’s conduct could amount to a sufficiently serious breach of EU law that confers rights on individuals. The Köbler judgment offers a possible structure, not a guaranteed remedy.
The latest development follows earlier disputes between Catalan leaders and Spanish judicial bodies. In a related case, Oriol Junqueras and other former officials challenged the Tribunal de Cuentas’ stance on the amnesty law, arguing that it ignored a basic EU ruling. The case is detailed in this related report.
The Köbler case remains a reference point in European law for state liability when a national court of last instance breaches EU obligations. Spain’s amnesty dispute highlights the distinction between potential damages claims, EU budget-protection measures and the separate judicial decisions needed to determine whether specific conduct qualifies for amnesty.
