Spain’s Supreme Court refuses to apply amnesty to Catalan Puigdemont

Spain’s Supreme Court has refused to apply amnesty to Puigdemont for the alleged offence of embezzlement in the “procés” case — Catalonia’s independence movement, which peaked in the 2017 referendum and unilateral declaration of independence. The court is also keeping in force the national arrest warrant for Catalonia’s former president.

Investigating judge Pablo Llarena, who is leading the case, has dismissed the request filed by Carles Puigdemont following the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 16 July.

The court agreed with the Socialist-led government’s argument that the 2024 amnesty law for Catalan separatists complies with EU legislation.

But Puigdemont, who headed Catalonia’s regional government when it held a banned independence referendum and attempted to secede from Spain, was excluded on two grounds: that Puigdemont had intended to obtain personal financial gain, and that the events had harmed the EU’s financial interests.

The EU court said granting amnesty for the misuse of funds did not undermine the bloc’s financial interests.

However, Llarena maintains that the European ruling doesn’t affect his other ground for excluding the amnesty: the alleged intent to obtain personal financial gain.

The ruling stresses that the new request isn’t being rejected because the CJEU’s interpretation is irrelevant, but because that interpretation doesn’t reach the second argument underpinning his refusal to apply the amnesty.

Llarena also notes that Spain’s Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on how the Amnesty Law should apply specifically in this case. Those rulings, he says, have neither overturned nor specifically endorsed his finding of personal financial gain — and he adds that he cannot predict the outcome of the appeals still pending before that court.

Puigdemont’s arrest warrant remains in force

The defence had asked for the national arrest warrant to be withdrawn on the grounds that the case might be closed, that the amnesty should apply, or that pursuing the men twice for the same acts would be unlawful.

Having rejected all three grounds, Llarena finds no basis to lift the warrant either. He notes, though, that this doesn’t rule out reviewing the measure in future if circumstances change, nor does refusing the amnesty by itself justify any tighter restriction.

Because the warrant is national in scope, Puigdemont and Comín can be arrested only if they enter Spanish territory.

Supreme Court refuses to transfer the case

Llarena also rejects requests to transfer the case to the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (Catalonia’s own regional high court) or to courts in Barcelona.

He likewise dismisses the request to close the case on grounds of “non bis in idem” — the legal principle barring double punishment for the same act — which the defence argued applied because an accounting-liability case is already underway at Spain’s Court of Audit.

As a result, Llarena maintains that the CJEU’s ruling doesn’t touch the argument he says still blocks the Amnesty Law from covering the embezzlement charges against them.