Manuel Marchena Gómez, president of the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court, has called widespread distrust of the judiciary a serious crisis. Public confidence is eroding as more citizens believe justice is not being served impartially. Speaking at the “Justicia y Estado de Derecho” course at Universidad CEU San Pablo in El Escorial, Marchena argued that perceptions of political bias among judges undermine social cohesion and the courts’ legitimacy.
Marchena criticised political parties’ involvement in popular prosecution, saying it fuels the politicisation of judicial proceedings. He argued that popular action should remain a legal tool, but operate within clear limits so parties cannot use the courts to extend political battles. In Spain, the mechanism known as acción popular allows citizens and organisations to participate in criminal proceedings as prosecutors under the country’s legal structure. Marchena’s point was that party involvement should not turn that route into a tool of political rivalry.
During his hour-long address, Marchena said a handful of high-profile trials each year shape public perceptions of the relationship between politics and the justice system. He cited survey figures showing that three-quarters of Spaniards believe political parties try to influence judicial decisions, while 32.2% consider court rulings on political matters fair and impartial. He said the figures pointed to a need to reinforce judicial independence and restore public trust.
Asked about the Supreme Court’s handling of the procés case involving Catalan independence leaders, Marchena declined to say whether the court should have awaited a European response before issuing its verdict. The trial of 12 defendants began on 12 February 2019, and the Supreme Court issued its judgment on 14 October that year. Nine leaders received prison sentences of between nine and 13 years for sedition and embezzlement, as well as disobedience. Marchena presided over the chamber that delivered the judgment, which later became basic to litigation over Spain’s amnesty law and its compatibility with constitutional and European legal requirements.
The European dimension includes separate proceedings concerning 12 members of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic, arrested in September 2019 during “Operation Judas”. In September 2024, Spain’s National Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) about the amnesty law and the EU anti-terrorism structure. The CJEU later held that an amnesty for offences of the relevant type did not, in itself, undermine the EU anti-terrorism directive. It left the Spanish court to apply that interpretation to the case before it. This proceeding is distinct from the dispute over applying the amnesty to embezzlement convictions in the procés case.
Spain’s Constitutional Court and Supreme Court have also heard challenges to the amnesty’s application to former Catalan officials. After constitutional-court developments clarified the law’s scope, the Supreme Court applied the amnesty to embezzlement convictions involving Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Dolors Bassa and Jordi Turull, ending their remaining disqualification consequences. Debate over how courts should interpret the law and the limits of European obligations continues. For more context on the EU court’s role and the law’s implications, see this overview of the Spanish amnesty cases.
Political parties’ involvement in popular prosecution has long prompted debate over where citizen participation ends and partisan litigation begins. At the CEU San Pablo course, Marchena argued that the mechanism should remain available but operate within clearer limits. The issue lies central to a wider institutional dispute: how courts can retain public confidence in their independence while deciding cases with major political consequences.
