Brussels questions the "self-amnesty" but does not believe the Process compromised EU funds.

MadridThe European Commission criticizes the fact that the amnesty law "seems to constitute a self-amnesty" by Pedro Sánchez to the partners who guarantee his governability, but does not believe that the Process compromised the financial interests of the European Union. "There is not a sufficient link between illegal activities aimed at the secession of part of the territory of a Member State and the financial interests of the EU, with regard to the Union's own resources," it concludes. It's a mixed bag in the non-binding observations that Brussels sent last December to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in relation to the preliminary ruling referred by the Court of Auditors, according to the text it has released. The Spanish and to which ARA has had access.

"The votes of its beneficiaries have been fundamental to its approval in the Spanish Parliament. The bill is part of a political agreement to achieve the investiture of the State government. Well, if we consider that self-amnesties, in which those who hold political power seek to shield themselves from what appears to be similar to immunity, are considered, the criterion should be applied when those in government guarantee the impunity of their partners in exchange for parliamentary support," says one paragraph of the Commission's text. In this sense, it questions whether the rule agreed upon by the PSOE and Junts fits with "the general interest recognized by the EU," although it emphasizes that it should be the Spanish judge who verifies it.

The possible impact on the financial interests of the EU is also an important element because it affects the amnesty for those accused of embezzlement. The Supreme Court, the Court of Auditors, and the High Court of Justice of Catalonia suspect that pardoning them for this crime could be contrary to European law, arguing that the diversion of funds for the referendum would somehow affect the European Union's coffers. "There is no sufficiently direct link shown between the illegalities in question and the Union's own resources [...]. The hypothetical reduction in Spain's gross national income [to contribute to EU funding] would result from a set of multiple actions, of which the organization of the illegal referendum and foreign action are only two elements.". However, it will be up to the state court to determine whether "the particularities of the main case could justify the existence of a sufficient connecting link."

The Spanish government is clinging to this point to assert that the European Commission "rejects" the preliminary ruling, as tweeted on X by the Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños. In a press conference following the Cabinet meeting, the spokesperson for the Moncloa, Pilar Alegría, stressed that Brussels "does not consider that the EU's financial interests were affected" and that, therefore, "what it is doing is validating the application of the amnesty in cases of embezzlement." "This opinion from the Commission is not binding, but we consider it positive and it brings us closer to the full implementation of the amnesty," she stressed.

On the other hand, the PP has called on the president of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, to "take note and act accordingly" in the deliberations on the Popular Party's appeal against the amnesty law, scheduled for the last week of June. "We are pleased that the European Commission supports the PP's arguments," said Miguel Tellado, the PP's spokesperson in Congress, who called the law "corrupt."

Puigdemont's return

Another key aspect of the amnesty concerns the lifting of precautionary measures—arrest and prison orders—which primarily affect Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín, and Lluís Puig. The law stipulates that the judge must lift them even if the court investigating them has filed a constitutional challenge to the Constitutional Court or a preliminary ruling with the CJEU, although the legislation initially states that proceedings are suspended when this occurs. However, Brussels also disagrees with this exception provided for in the amnesty. "An obligation on Spanish courts to lift precautionary measures before deciding whether the application of the amnesty is justified in a specific case, even when the courts deem it necessary to request a preliminary ruling, is incompatible with the principles of the primacy of EU law and the separation of powers, as it restricts them," the Commission maintains.

The criticism of the amnesty goes even further and is loaded with arguments such as that "it has accentuated the deep and virulent division of the political class, in the institutions, in the judicial world, in the academic world and in Spanish society", using the point of the recommendations of the Venice Commission, which also demanded more consensus for standards, Although that same body endorsed the law. The European Commission also maintains that it was approved through "an urgent procedure, thus avoiding important reports from advisory bodies and without public consultation" and because it was not approved by "a higher qualified majority."

The various parties involved in the preliminary ruling submitted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg have reportedly received these observations from the European Commission in recent days. However, it will be the CJEU that will have to respond to the questions from the Spanish audit body's minister, who decided not to apply the amnesty due to the 1-O referendum and the foreign action of the Generalitat (Catalan government). A hearing is scheduled for July 15 to examine the parties' arguments. It has been almost a year since she presented these doubts to the CJEU, and a response is expected by the end of the year.