The Spanish government has continued to press for swift implementation of the amnesty law after the European court ruling Madrid has cited in support of the measure. The dispute has since moved into a decisive phase in Spain’s domestic courts. On 20 October 2026, the Supreme Court applied the amnesty to ERC leader Oriol Junqueras and former Catalan ministers Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa, following the Constitutional Court’s decision to overturn the Supreme Court’s earlier refusal to apply the law to their malversación convictions. Government supporters presented the outcome as confirmation of the law’s constitutionality and a step towards improving political coexistence in Catalonia.
The Supreme Court’s decision followed a prolonged institutional dispute over whether the law covered convictions involving public funds in cases arising from the Catalan independence process. The ruling addressed the named leaders; it did not automatically resolve every case connected to the 2017 independence lead. The Constitutional Court also abandoned a planned ruling on Turull’s appeal after the Supreme Court’s decision made it moot. The court process marked a major step in implementing the law, while the status of other people affected by the proceedings remained a separate issue.
The legal disagreement has also exposed divisions within the judiciary. Supreme Court magistrate Manuel Marchena criticized the Constitutional Court’s reasoning as “unnecessary grandiloquence” and described its intervention as a break with its historical jurisprudence. The Supreme Court order recorded that as many as 14 magistrates, including five Constitutional Court judges, had supported arguments against applying the amnesty to malversación convictions. The courts’ strong language reflects the institutional tension behind a dispute that has become basic to the political debate.
The amnesty grew out of the parliamentary agreement that enabled Pedro Sánchez to form a government with support from Junts, ERC, the PSC and the Comuns. Madrid has defended the measure as a way to ease the Catalan crisis and restore political coexistence. Catalan President Salvador Illa said the decisions would allow those affected to participate and exercise their political rights. Sumar spokesperson Ernest Urtasun has also pointed to the “plurinational majority” behind Sánchez’s government as an example of what broad political cooperation can achieve.
Junts and ERC, but, reject the idea that the court decisions end the conflict with the Spanish state. Junts secretary-general Jordi Turull has called for the amnesty’s application to be “total” and linked its completion to the return of Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Lluís Puig. Turull described the outcome as “not forgiveness, but justice” and said voting for Catalan independence should never be a crime. Junts spokesperson Mònica Sales called the Supreme Court’s action “forced, late, and reluctant,” arguing that the measure must extend beyond the leaders covered by the October order. The removal of arrest warrants for Puigdemont, Comín and Puig is separate from the amnesty applied to Junqueras, Turull, Romeva and Bassa.
ERC leader Oriol Junqueras has urged the courts to apply the law diligently and comprehensively, while calling on Catalan parties to work together towards greater sovereignty. Earlier demands by Junts, ERC and other regional parties for outstanding appeals to be resolved quickly underscored the political pressure surrounding the judicial timetable. The October decisions have now resolved the amnesty appeals of several prominent leaders, but they have not settled the broader political disagreement or every individual case. Junts continues to describe the process as incomplete, while ERC and CUP figures have also argued that the political dispute should not simply be postponed.
The opposition Partido Popular, which led protests and legal challenges against the amnesty, continues to frame the debate as a political and moral issue as well as a legal one. The standoff shows how judicial decisions and parliamentary calculations remain closely intertwined in Spanish politics. It also recalls other high-profile agreements involving Spain, including the EU-Spain-UK deal on Gibraltar border arrangements, which required complex negotiations over regional and national interests. For more on cross-border agreements reshaping Spain’s political field, see this report on the new Gibraltar border arrangements.
Spain’s amnesty law, passed in 2024, was designed to address legal cases stemming from the 2017 Catalan independence push. Its implementation has been contentious: critics warn of political interference in the judiciary, while supporters argue it is impressive for reconciliation. The Supreme Court’s 20 October decisions applied the measure to four prominent figures after the Constitutional Court overturned the earlier refusal concerning their malversación convictions. The rulings mark a impressive step in implementing the law, but their wider consequences for Catalan politics and the relationship between Madrid and the independence movement remain contested.
