Carles Puigdemont is unlikely to return to Catalonia soon. The amnesty remains unresolved in his case, while his team weighs the political meaning of his arrival.
The legal opening created by a 6 October court decision has not cleared the way for Carles Puigdemont to return to Catalonia.
The immediate problem is the amnesty’s unresolved application. Judge Pablo Llarena lifted the arrest order, but that step did not apply the amnesty to Puigdemont’s case. His political team is also weighing whether to present the event as the return of a former president rather than a party leader’s campaign appearance.
Journalist Maiol Roger gave that assessment during the latest edition of Col·lapse on TV3. Speaking on the debate programme hosted by Jordi González, Roger said the expectation of an immediate return had weakened for two reasons: Llarena’s legal position and the institutional meaning Puigdemont wants to attach to the event.
Puigdemont left Spain in 2017 after the declaration of Catalan independence and has lived in Belgium since then. Spain’s parliament approved the amnesty law in 2024, but its application to the embezzlement allegations remained subject to a separate judicial dispute.
The legal issue is narrow but consequential. The Constitutional Court voted favourably on 6 October for the application of the amnesty to the leaders of the procés by the Supreme Court. Llarena then removed the order for Puigdemont’s search arrest and detention. According to the explanation given on the programme, the judge lifted the detention measure without applying the amnesty itself at this stage.
That distinction leaves Puigdemont exposed to a possible reversal if he returns before the amnesty question is settled in his case.
Roger said the former president’s entourage does not currently expect him to return before the elections to campaign. Its preferred scenario would present him as “the president who returns to Catalonia”. That wording places the event in an institutional frame and separates it from an ordinary party appearance.
The decisions come as Spain prepares for early parliamentary elections on 29 November 2026, increasing the political importance of any return. Puigdemont has said that the amnesty removes the judicial prosecution but does not resolve the underlying question of Catalan independence.
The timing depends on the court process and the image Puigdemont’s entourage wants to project. Roger stressed that the situation could still change and that no final decision had been made.
Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary set out the legal qualification. Llarena’s decision of 6 October removed the national search and detention orders for Puigdemont, Antoni Comín and Lluís Puig after the Constitutional Court accepted former Catalan minister Dolors Bassa’s challenge concerning the application of the amnesty law to the alleged misuse of public funds. The ruling does not automatically apply the amnesty, terminate criminal liability or settle every remaining procedural question.
According to Reuters, the two court decisions removed the main practical barrier to Puigdemont’s return. The Constitutional Court recognised the possible application of the amnesty to the embezzlement accusations, after which the Supreme Court judge cancelled the arrest warrant. The Supreme Court must still examine the full Constitutional Court ruling and issue a separate reasoned decision that could confirm or alter the temporary measure.
The difference between lifting an arrest order and applying the amnesty is central to the uncertainty. It explains why the judicial development reported in earlier coverage did not produce an immediate appearance in Catalonia.
For now, the available information points to a controlled delay rather than an imminent border crossing. Llarena’s decision means Puigdemont can return without facing detention under that particular order, but it has not removed every legal risk or completed the amnesty process in his case. The political presentation remains part of the calculation.
Maiol Roger described a later arrival with presidential symbolism as the clearer possibility, while stressing that no final decision had been made.
