In the hands of the Supreme Court: the precedents that could slow down the amnesty for Puigdemont and Junqueras

July 16th has been marked in red on the calendar for weeks as a key date for the amnesty of the leaders of October 1st. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will rule on whether the law affects the financial interests of the EU, at the request of a preliminary ruling by the Court of Auditors. However, the effects of this ruling will go further. The ruling is a prerequisite that the Constitutional Court has imposed on itself to resolve the appeals for protection filed by Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, and the rest of the former ministers, awaiting Europe to provide an argumentative cushion to justify that they be freed from criminal responsibility and that the law also apply to them. But the path to get here will not be easy: although a favorable ruling from the Constitutional Court is expected in the autumn – last June it endorsed the norm's fit within the magna carta–, the ball will once again fall into the lap of the Supreme Court, which will have the final say. However, there are very recent examples that show a slowness that could be repeated with the application of the amnesty.The Supreme Court is cryptic about the strategy they will follow, although sources consulted by ARA note that if there are very clear resolutions from Europe and the Constitutional Court, they will follow them and there will be extinction of criminal liability. However, there is an immediate precedent in which the Supreme Court has not acted with celerity. Two years ago, the high court raised a question of unconstitutionality to the TC regarding the case of a demonstrator from Girona investigated for public disorder following the protests of October 2019. On October 8, 2025, that is, nine months ago, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal and gave the green light to the Supreme Court to put an end to the criminal case. Despite this, as of today, there has been no movement. Nor has the TC made any move to enforce its resolution, since, according to the sources consulted, the young man's defense has not filed any execution incident. Official sources from the Supreme Court claim to have no information on the case.The precedent of the Canary Islands 

Beyond the case of Catalonia, there is an example that highlights the odyssey that enforcing a Constitutional Court ruling can become. We must travel to La Laguna, a municipality on the island of Tenerife. In April 2020, a court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife annulled the article of the statutes of the Pontificia, Real y Venerable Esclavitud del Santísimo Cristo de la Laguna association, which prevented women from becoming members, alleging that it violated the right to equality. The woman who prompted this was Teresa Laborda.In January 2022, however, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling and upheld the exclusion of women from the association, which is defined as a "religious association of knights". Laborda took the case to the Constitutional Court, which ruled in his favour in November 2024. However, a year and a half has passed and there has been no change, despite the court having blocked the multiple attempts by the association and the Bishopric of Tenerife to prevent it from being applied. Given the inaction, Laborda has filed two execution incidents with the TC, but both have been dismissed as premature.Rajoy's reform

The question is what powers the Constitutional Court has to enforce its rulings. What does the law say? The government of Mariano Rajoy, in view of the Process, carried out a reform in 2015 to give the TC execution capacity. During 2016 and 2017, Moncloa filed execution incidents before the TC because the Parliament's board admitted initiatives that unfolded the independence process – which was interpreted as a breach of a previous ruling – and the Constitutional Court forwarded the facts to the Prosecutor's Office, which filed numerous lawsuits for disobedience up to the macro-case of the Process for sedition.The law goes further and also gives powers to the TC to act ex officio: it can impose coercive fines of 3,000 to 30,000 euros – it was applied against the electoral oversight body of 1-O – or suspend authorities that do not comply with resolutions. Therefore, the Constitutional Court has legal tools, but legal sources aware of the matter assure that the TC magistrates are usually not very belligerent with other judges. Will Cándido Conde-Pumpido openly confront the Supreme Court to enforce the amnesty?Avoid the collision

Until now, the TC has wanted to avoid a direct clash with the Supreme Court. The proof is that it has refused to apply precautionary measures such as lifting the prison order for Puigdemont, which would have allowed the former president to return to Catalonia while the procedure on the appeal for protection and the case in the Supreme Court remains open. Doing so would have involved an unprecedented battle between the Supreme Court and the TC, which Conde-Pumpido has avoided. Of course, the president of the Constitutional Court has publicly warned that "all public powers are obliged to comply" with what the TC resolves.Politically, this scenario, according to various sources consulted, was addressed at the negotiation table between the PSOE and Junts before the breakdown, but it went nowhere. And here also lies the distancing between Puigdemont and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, as sources familiar with the matter point out that the former Spanish president always conveyed high optimism about the fulfillment of the PSOE-Junts agreements, which later did not correspond to reality.The other possibility: go to Europe

The other card the Supreme Court can play is to go to the CJEU after the Constitutional Court's ruling. An unprecedented move that until now only one court has made: the Seville Court in the ERO case. After being reviewed by the TC, it raised a preliminary ruling to Luxembourg because it considered that the annulment of the sentences of Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñán implied a “systemic risk of impunity”.The Supreme Court could repeat a similar move in the case of the pro-independence leaders. On what grounds? What the Luxembourg court will do next week is rule on whether the October 1st referendum affected the EU's financial interests, but the Supreme Court has another argument on which Europe will not have ruled yet: it maintains that there is embezzlement because the leaders of the "Procés" saved themselves the cost of the referendum from their own pockets. "An interpretation that considered the crime of embezzlement to be amnestible would force us in the future to raise the preliminary ruling," the Supreme Court warned almost two years ago in one of its rulings.

In short, after the ECJ ruling and the subsequent pronouncement of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court has three scenarios on the table: quickly apply the amnesty, put it aside, pushing the TC into conflict, or go back to Europe. In all cases, it is the Supreme Court that controls the calendar with a decision of electoral impact: the Spanish elections will be next year and the Catalan elections will be held by 2028 at the latest.