Spain's Supreme Court has declined to extend the 2024 amnesty law to Carles Puigdemont, the former president of Catalonia, in a ruling that keeps his legal jeopardy alive. The decision, issued by investigating judge Pablo Llarena, also maintains the national arrest warrant against Puigdemont, who has lived in self-imposed exile in Belgium since 2017.
The case stems from the so-called procés—the Catalan independence drive that culminated in a banned referendum and a unilateral declaration of independence in October 2017. Puigdemont fled to Brussels to avoid detention and has remained a fugitive from Spanish justice, with the arrest warrant still active.
In his ruling, Llarena rejected the defence's request to apply the amnesty, which was passed by Spain's Socialist-led government in 2024 to normalise relations with Catalan separatists. The judge accepted that the amnesty law is compatible with EU legislation, as the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed in its judgment of 16 July. However, he found that Puigdemont's case falls outside the law's scope on two separate grounds.
The first ground is that Puigdemont allegedly intended to obtain personal financial gain from the misuse of public funds. The second is that the events harmed the EU's financial interests. The CJEU's ruling, Llarena noted, addressed only the second point, concluding that granting amnesty for such misuse does not undermine the bloc's financial interests. But the judge maintained that the European court's interpretation does not affect his finding on the alleged personal gain.
"The request is not rejected because the CJEU's interpretation is irrelevant," Llarena wrote, "but because that interpretation does not reach the second argument underpinning my refusal to apply the amnesty." He also pointed out that Spain's Constitutional Court has yet to rule on the specific application of the amnesty law in this case, and that its pending decisions have neither overturned nor endorsed his conclusion about personal gain.
Arrest warrant and legal manoeuvres
The defence had asked for the national arrest warrant to be lifted, arguing that the case might be closed, that the amnesty should apply, or that prosecuting Puigdemont twice for the same acts would violate the principle of non bis in idem. Llarena rejected all three arguments, finding no basis to withdraw the warrant. He did note, however, that the measure could be reviewed if circumstances change, and that refusing the amnesty does not by itself justify tighter restrictions.
Because the warrant is national in scope, Puigdemont and his former minister Toni Comín—who also faces charges—can only be arrested if they set foot on Spanish soil. Both remain in Belgium, where they have been active in European politics.
The judge also dismissed requests to transfer the case to Catalonia's regional high court or to courts in Barcelona, and refused to close the case on grounds of double jeopardy. The defence had argued that an accounting-liability case already underway at Spain's Court of Audit should preclude further prosecution.
The ruling underscores the ongoing legal complexity surrounding the Catalan independence movement, even as the amnesty law was designed to draw a line under the events of 2017. The law has been controversial, with critics arguing it undermines the rule of law, while supporters see it as a necessary step toward political reconciliation.
Puigdemont's legal team is expected to appeal the decision, potentially taking the case to the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights. The outcome will be closely watched across Europe, as it touches on the balance between national sovereignty and EU legal frameworks.
For now, the former president remains a polarising figure in Spanish politics, with his fate still tied to the courts rather than the ballot box. The Supreme Court's decision is a significant setback for Puigdemont, but it is unlikely to be the final word in this long-running saga.
