The Supreme Court’s initial refusal to apply Spain’s amnesty law to the malversación convictions delayed relief for Catalan independence leaders, even after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the law did not breach EU principles or threaten the Union’s financial interests. That position later changed: on 20 October 2026, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber declared the criminal liability of Oriol Junqueras and Raül Romeva extinguished under the amnesty, then did the same for Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa. The decision reverses the court’s earlier interpretation of the law’s personal-enrichment exclusion.
The four officials were convicted by the Supreme Court in 2019 over their roles in the Catalan independence process. The amnesty dispute centered on whether the statutory exclusion concerning an intention to obtain enrichment applied, given that they had not personally paid costs associated with the independence campaign. The Constitutional Court rejected the Supreme Court’s earlier reasoning in the relevant appeals, finding that its rulings had unlawfully denied amnesty on the ground that the defendants received a personal patrimonial benefit. The Supreme Court then adopted the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s judgment concerning Bassa and extended the same amnesty outcome to the four former Catalan government officials.
The decision extinguished the remaining criminal consequences of their convictions, including the disqualification penalties. So, Junqueras and Romeva, along with Turull and Bassa, may again stand for election or hold public office, subject to the procedural effects of the orders. The Consejo General del Poder Judicial said the Criminal Chamber had declared their criminal liability arising from the procés case extinguished. RTVE reported that the chamber acted because the Constitutional Court had ordered it to apply the amnesty to the leaders’ malversación convictions.
The ruling did not automatically resolve the separate cases of Carles Puigdemont and former officials Toni Comín and Lluís Puig, who were not tried in the same proceedings after leaving Spain following the 2017 events. Their cases require further procedural steps. In particular, a separate decision by investigating judge Pablo Llarena remained open to appeal. After that, the court that tried the procés leaders would need to issue definitive orders concerning Puigdemont and the former councillors. Extinguishing criminal liability for people already convicted and lifting precautionary measures in cases that have not gone to trial are distinct legal acts. The October decision so did not itself lift every measure affecting Puigdemont.
The earlier proceedings unfolded amid a wider legal dispute involving the CJEU and Spain’s courts. The CJEU’s ruling addressed the law’s compatibility with EU law, including the Union’s financial interests and anti-terrorism rules. The domestic dispute over whether the amnesty covered malversación turned on the interpretation of the Spanish statute. The Tribunal de Cuentas and the Audiencia Nacional, which had challenged the law, could also consider the European court’s reasoning in their respective proceedings. The Constitutional Court’s intervention changed the legal position for the four convicted officials, requiring the Supreme Court to implement its interpretation instead of maintaining its earlier restrictive reading.
The amnesty debate has also carried political significance. Supporters have presented the law as a measure to ease institutional and political tensions, while critics have called it a concession made to secure Pedro Sánchez’s investiture. The CJEU’s ruling removed a major EU-law obstacle. The subsequent Constitutional Court and Supreme Court decisions addressed how the amnesty applied domestically to the malversación convictions. Catalan leaders had pressed for immediate enforcement after the EU court’s endorsement, an issue explored in more detail in this related report.
The October 2026 order resolved the outstanding criminal consequences for Junqueras and Romeva, as well as Turull and Bassa, but the procedural path for Puigdemont, Comín and Puig remained separate. The case moved through distinct stages: EU review of the law’s compatibility with European rules, Constitutional Court review of the Supreme Court’s interpretation, and implementation by the Criminal Chamber. The immediate legal effect for the four convicted officials is clear. Further orders remain relevant to the former leaders who were not tried.
