Carles Puigdemont is considering whether to seek financial compensation from Spain over delays in fully applying the 2024 amnesty law. His legal team, led by Gonzalo Boye, has complained to the European Commission, alleging that the Tribunal de Cuentas deliberately hindered the amnesty’s application to Puigdemont and other former Catalan officials, including Artur Mas. Boye’s submission described the alleged conduct as an “objective and deliberate” failure to comply with a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). If the legal requirements for state liability are met, Spain could face a damages claim.
The complaint concerns proceedings over alleged public spending connected with the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. The filing says the CJEU ruled that the amnesty law was compatible with EU law, including protections for the Union’s financial interests. The Tribunal de Cuentas nevertheless opened a further period for submissions to establish “whether EU funds were spent,” an issue relevant to the law’s exceptions. The dispute so turns in part on how the CJEU’s interpretation of EU financial protections applies to the Tribunal de Cuentas’ separate assessment of the expenditure.
The case involves several distinct figures and legal processes. The proceedings have been described as concerning nearly €4 million in alleged referendum-related spending, while the complaint says precautionary measures of €9.5 million remained in place against the group under investigation. The figures refer to alleged expenditure and security measures, not necessarily the same measure of financial liability. Later reporting put the prosecutor’s claim at about €3.1 million and the claim associated with Sociedad Civil Catalana at about €5 million.
By October 2026, the Tribunal de Cuentas had reportedly applied the amnesty to Puigdemont and 34 other people involved in the financial proceedings, bringing the reported claims against them to an end. This was a later stage in the case than the complaint’s initial challenge to the Tribunal’s handling of the matter. It does not, by itself, establish that Spain owes compensation. Such a claim would require a legally actionable breach attributable to state authorities and demonstrable damages.
The amnesty dispute also spans separate proceedings in different courts. In the criminal case, the Supreme Court’s earlier interpretation treated a personal benefit as potentially including release from an economic burden created by unauthorized public spending. The Constitutional Court later held that such a benefit must be distinguishable from the costs of organizing the independence referendum. That ruling prompted the Supreme Court to reconsider the consequences for Puigdemont and other former officials. The Supreme Court subsequently lifted Puigdemont’s arrest warrant, but the order did not amount to a final dismissal. Final disposition remained with the court’s Criminal Chamber through the ordinary process.
Puigdemont has called for the Supreme Court to implement the amnesty “without further delay,” linking its application to the normalization of Catalonia. The distinction between lifting an arrest warrant and definitively dismissing a case remains procedurally impressive. Different courts have handled the criminal and financial proceedings, and implementation has taken place in stages rather than through a single nationwide act.
When the European Commission confirmed it had received Boye’s complaint, it said the submission would undergo its standard assessment process. The complaint asked the Commission to issue a formal notice to Spain, but receiving a complaint does not itself mean the Commission will open infringement proceedings or find state liability. The filing also called for urgent action. The Commission’s initial response was that it would assess admissibility and decide whether further steps were warranted. Under the procedure described in reporting on the complaint, the assessment could take up to one year from registration. If the complaint is rejected, the Commission must provide a reasoned response, subject to stated exceptions.
The Spanish prosecutor’s office has called for immediate application of the amnesty, arguing that further examination of EU funds in the Catalan proceedings is unwarranted after the CJEU ruling. Boye maintains that Spain should be responsible for damages caused by delayed implementation, although he has not specified the amount he might claim. The amnesty’s subsequent application in the Tribunal de Cuentas proceedings and the separate criminal-court decisions mark distinct steps in a wider process. Neither, by itself, resolves the question of compensation.
The legal standoff comes as Spanish institutions face scrutiny over their handling of high-profile cases. In a related context, the recent death of José Antonio Torres Sáez, Spain’s longest-serving mayor, drew national attention to local governance and accountability, as reported in coverage of his decades-long service in Chercos.
The amnesty law was enacted in 2024 as part of the political settlement surrounding Catalonia’s independence conflict. Its application has involved the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, as well as the Tribunal de Cuentas, with each addressing different legal questions. The resulting dispute tests the relationship between national judicial proceedings and EU-law protections. Any prospect of compensation depends on the legal consequences of the alleged delay and evidence of actual harm.
