Spain’s Supreme Court has rejected Carles Puigdemont’s request to have his alleged misuse of public funds covered by the new amnesty law. Judge Pablo Llanera, who oversees the ‘procés’ case, dismissed it despite a recent European Court of Justice (TJUE) ruling that weakened part of the prosecution’s case.
The decision leaves the national arrest warrant for Puigdemont active. Former Catalan minister Antoni Comin, who made a similar request, remains in the same position. Both men were basic to the 2017 Catalan independence movement and remain outside Spain as the legal process continues.
Tribunal de Cuentas says amnesty has already been applied to 35 individuals involved in budgetary cases related to the Catalan procés, covering nearly 5 million euros.
Judge Llanera’s reasoning is direct. The TJUE’s July 16 decision found that the Catalan independence attempt did not affect the European Union’s financial interests. But, the judge argues that the amnesty law does not apply when there was a personal financial benefit. The court says the alleged personal gain is enough to keep the misuse of funds charges in place, regardless of the EU court’s findings.
The Supreme Court’s position is that the European court’s ruling removes only one reason for denying amnesty. The other, suspected personal enrichment, remains. The judge also notes that Spain’s Constitutional Court has yet to decide how the amnesty law should apply to these cases. That leaves room for further legal debate but brings no immediate change for Puigdemont or Comin.
Puigdemont’s lawyers tried to move the case to Catalan courts and argued that a parallel process at the Tribunal de Cuentas amounted to double jeopardy. The Supreme Court rejected both arguments, saying neither the trial’s location nor the existence of another proceeding justifies dropping the charges or lifting the arrest warrant.
EFE reports that the Constitutional Court is preparing to review the Supreme Court’s position, particularly its arguments about EU financial interests. A decision in favor of amnesty could affect the arrest warrant, but would have no immediate effect on Puigdemont’s legal status.
For now, the court’s decision means the amnesty law does not protect Puigdemont or Comin from the misuse of funds charges. The judge’s order also says the absence of amnesty does not automatically justify all precautionary measures. It does, but, prevent the arrest warrant from being lifted on the grounds presented so far.
This legal dispute comes as Spain’s judiciary faces criticism over its handling of politically sensitive cases. As reported earlier, tensions between the government and the judiciary have grown in recent years. High-profile cases have highlighted the limits of legal reforms and the persistence of established judicial positions.
The amnesty law was intended to ease political tensions, but the Supreme Court’s decision shows its limits when personal gain is alleged. Even after the TJUE’s intervention, the court has held its position. Puigdemont still has no path to legal absolution under the ruling, and Spain’s judiciary has not relinquished its use in the Catalan case.
