Full Breakdown
Spain’s Supreme Court Denies Amnesty for Catalan Leaders Puigdemont and Comín
By Drooid · · How we work
Supreme Court Rejects Amnesty Application
Spain’s Supreme Court has refused to extend the 2024 amnesty law to former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and former minister Toni Comín for alleged misappropriation of public funds. The decision keeps the national arrest warrant for Puigdemont in force and leaves the case under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court rather than regional or Barcelona courts.
Legal Background and EU Court Ruling
The defence invoked a July 16 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the amnesty law does not conflict with EU legislation and does not jeopardise the bloc’s financial interests. The CJEU judgment was intended to address concerns that the law might undermine EU financial stability.
Judge Pablo Llarena’s Reasoning
Investigating judge Pablo Llarena, who is presiding over the case, accepted the CJEU’s finding on EU financial interests but argued that the EU ruling does not affect his separate assessment that Puigdemont sought personal financial gain. Llarena also noted that Spain’s Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on how the amnesty law should be applied to the specific embezzlement allegations, and therefore his refusal remains grounded in that unresolved legal question.
Implications for Arrest Warrants and Jurisdiction
The court dismissed the defence’s request to withdraw the national arrest warrant on the grounds that the case might be closed, that the amnesty should apply, or that pursuing the same acts twice would violate the principle of “non bis in idem.” Llarena also rejected proposals to transfer the case to the High Court of Justice of Catalonia or to courts in Barcelona. Because the warrant is national in scope, Puigdemont and Comín can be detained only if they enter Spanish territory.
Next Legal Steps
Llarena indicated that the warrant could be reviewed if circumstances change, and the pending appeal before the Constitutional Court may ultimately determine the scope of the amnesty law for the embezzlement charges. The defence may seek further judicial review, but no additional hearings or deadlines have been scheduled.