The Supreme Court closes the door to amnesty for Puigdemont and leaves it in the hands of the Constitutional Court.

BarcelonaThe Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals against the ruling issued by investigating judge Pablo Llarena, who decided not to apply the amnesty law to former President Carles Puigdemont for the crime of embezzlement of public funds. This ruling also affects former ministers Toni Comín and Lluís Puig. The ruling was challenged by the State Attorney, the Public Prosecutor's Office, Vox, and the defense attorneys for Puigdemont and Comín in various ways. All appeals are therefore dismissed, and the Constitutional Court will have the final say. Judges Vicente Magro, Eduardo de Porres, and Susana Polo consider that Llarena's decision "does not contravene the will of the legislator." Thus, they clear the way for former President Puigdemont and Comín to file an appeal for protection of constitutional rights in the Constitutional Court.

The judges insist on an innovative interpretation of embezzlement to exclude them from the amnesty. Thus, they consider that they organized the October 1 referendum with public funds and that Puigdemont and Comín saved money out of their own pockets, which is why this falls under the exception of "personal benefit of a patrimonial nature." "A subject benefits patrimonially when their assets increase, but also when their assets do not decrease because their obligations are illicitly assumed by public funds. In this case, the defendants benefited patrimonially insofar as they personally promoted the illegal political project and endorsed the expenses to the regional administration, without this initiative being accountable."

In the ruling, the judges justify their biased interpretation of the crime, which they consider to be neither "arbitrary" nor "extravagant." Furthermore, they rule that "it is solidly based on the interpretation of the literal terms of the law in accordance with criteria of linguistic normality, does not contravene any constitutional value or principle, and, finally, does not contradict the material orientation of the law." The judges also consider it inappropriate to raise a question of constitutionality before the Constitutional Court regarding this crime and also rule out "at this procedural stage" raising a preliminary question before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). They do not clarify, in any case, whether they intend to do so later, for example, when the Constitutional Court issues a ruling to further delay the application of the amnesty. even if it is endorsed by the Constitutional Court.

Puigdemont was quick to weigh in on the ruling, asserting that "it's no surprise, neither in substance nor in form." "The decision confirms the attitude of rebellion against the legislative branch and the tantrum over a law they don't like, and which leads them to twist the interpretation of the alleged crime of embezzlement," he added, after ironically stating that they don't even spell out the names of the defendants [Gordi is Lluís Puig's second surname.

For his part, the president of the Generalitat (Catalan government), Salvador Illa, once again called on the courts to "respect" the decisions of the legislative branch. "The amnesty law should be effective. I would like it to be applied to everyone and for Carles Puigdemont to be able to return to Catalonia. I hope it is resolved quickly and effectively," Illa stated from Milà, where he is on an official trip.

The next step is in the Constitutional Court.

In July 2024, the trial instructor rejected the amnesty for the crimes of embezzlement in Puigdemont, Comín, and Puig. The defense appealed this decision, but Llarena reaffirmed his position two months later. Given this situation, the defendants filed a new appeal, which they defended. at a public hearing on March 10. At that hearing, the Supreme Court's deputy prosecutor, Ángeles Sánchez Conde, favored upholding these appeals, considering that the investigating judge "fabricated" the idea that the defendants would benefit from personal gain by charging the public treasury with the organization of the October 1, 2010, referendum. On Thursday, this ruling was issued. Puigdemont is already clear to appeal to the Constitutional Court (TC), through an appeal for constitutional protection. In fact, this week, the president of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, revealed that they plan to have the ruling on the first appeal against the amnesty law, specifically that of the People's Party, completed before the summer, around June. Conde-Pumpido explained that they have sixteen appeals for unconstitutionality on the table: six questions of unconstitutionality presented by the Supreme Court, the High Court of Justice (TSJC), and the Madrid Court of Appeals, and eight appeals for constitutional protection. Depending on the Constitutional Court's position, Puigdemont may consider returning to Catalonia. However, ultimately, the ball will return to the Supreme Court, since it will be the highest court in charge of applying the Constitutional Court's ruling in the specific case of the exiled former president and former council members.