Spain’s Supreme Court has refused to apply the country’s amnesty law to former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont in the embezzlement case linked to the 2017 independence drive. The decision leaves a national arrest warrant in force and adds a new layer to a long-running legal dispute involving Spanish courts, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Catalan independence movement.
The ruling does not reject the relevance of the CJEU’s interpretation of the 2024 Amnesty Law. Instead, investigating judge Pablo Llarena concluded that the European court’s July ruling did not resolve a separate legal reason previously used to exclude Puigdemont from the amnesty.
What Spain’s Supreme Court decided
The case concerns allegations that public funds were misused in connection with Catalonia’s banned 2017 independence referendum and the subsequent unilateral declaration of independence. Puigdemont, who led Catalonia’s regional government at the time, has denied wrongdoing and has remained outside Spain since leaving for Belgium after the failed independence bid.
Llarena rejected a renewed request from Puigdemont after the CJEU ruled on 16 July that the Spanish amnesty framework was compatible with EU law. The European court also found that granting an amnesty for alleged misuse of public funds would not, in itself, harm the EU’s financial interests.
However, the Spanish judge maintained that another ground remained relevant: the allegation that the defendants had intended to obtain personal financial gain. According to the decision, that issue was not removed by the CJEU judgment.
- The amnesty was not applied to the embezzlement allegations.
- The national arrest warrant remains active.
- The case will not be transferred to Catalonia’s regional high court or to courts in Barcelona.
- The request to close the proceedings under the principle of non bis in idem was rejected.
Why the CJEU ruling did not end the dispute
The Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to clarify how Spain’s amnesty law should be understood under EU law. Its ruling supported the Spanish government’s position that the legislation could comply with the bloc’s legal framework, including rules protecting the EU budget.
That judgment did not automatically determine how every individual case must be resolved in Spain. National courts still have to apply the interpretation to the facts and legal arguments before them. In Puigdemont’s case, Llarena said the CJEU’s findings addressed the EU financial-interest argument but did not settle the separate question of alleged personal financial gain.
The judge also noted that Spain’s Constitutional Court has not yet issued a ruling specifically determining how the amnesty should apply to this case. Appeals concerning the law remain pending, meaning the legal position could be reviewed again if the relevant circumstances change.
What the arrest warrant means
The defence asked for the warrant to be withdrawn, arguing that the case could be closed, that the amnesty should apply or that continuing the proceedings could breach the prohibition on double punishment for the same conduct.
All three arguments were rejected. As a result, the national warrant remains in force. Its scope is limited to Spanish territory, meaning Puigdemont and former Catalan government colleague Toni Comín could be arrested under it if they enter Spain.
The decision does not impose a broader European arrest warrant. It also leaves open the possibility of a future review if the legal or factual position changes.
Other requests rejected by the judge
Llarena declined to transfer the proceedings to the High Court of Justice of Catalonia or to courts in Barcelona. He also rejected the argument that the criminal case should end because a separate accounting-liability procedure is under way before Spain’s Court of Audit.
The defence had relied on non bis in idem, a legal principle intended to prevent a person from being prosecuted or punished twice for the same conduct. The judge did not accept that the parallel proceedings required the criminal case to be closed.
What happens next in the Spanish courts?
The ruling is part of a wider institutional process rather than the final word on the amnesty dispute. Spain’s Constitutional Court still has pending issues concerning the legislation and its application. Further legal challenges may therefore affect how the case develops.
The immediate position is clear: Puigdemont remains covered by a national arrest warrant, and the Supreme Court has not applied the amnesty to the alleged embezzlement offence. The decision also illustrates the division of responsibilities between EU and national courts. The CJEU interprets EU law, while Spanish courts apply that interpretation within domestic proceedings.
Why this matters for European politics
The case remains significant beyond Spain because it sits at the intersection of EU law, constitutional oversight, judicial independence and regional self-determination. It also tests how a national amnesty measure interacts with European rules on the protection of the EU’s financial interests.
For the European Union, the key question is not simply whether an amnesty exists, but how national judges interpret its limits in individual proceedings. For Spain, the ruling keeps a politically sensitive criminal case active while constitutional challenges to the amnesty law continue.
For Puigdemont, the practical consequence is that returning to Spain would continue to carry the risk of arrest under the national warrant. The legal route to overturning or changing that position remains open only through further court proceedings or a change in the circumstances identified by the Spanish judiciary.
Conclusion
Spain’s Supreme Court has rejected Carles Puigdemont’s renewed amnesty request because it considers a separate personal-financial-gain argument unresolved, despite the CJEU’s finding that the amnesty law can comply with EU law. The national arrest warrant therefore remains in force, while Spain’s Constitutional Court and other pending proceedings could still shape the next stage of this European legal and political dispute.
