The European Commission tells the CJEU that the amnesty is contrary to EU values.

LuxembourgBrussels had avoided commenting on the amnesty law and, as usual, acted as if it felt like it was raining whenever asked about such a delicate issue in the politics of a Member State. And, in fact, this was the general tone of the Spanish lawyer for the EU executive, Carlos Urraca, in the first statements during the hearings with Luxembourg on the measure, which took place this Tuesday at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, tension in the courtroom increased throughout the eight-hour hearing, until the European Commission lawyer finally unleashed all his might and asserted that "granting an amnesty in exchange for support for a government is not compatible with EU values."

Hours earlier, he had already criticized the law, albeit in a more subdued tone. The lawyer had questioned the "general interest" of an amnesty resulting from a political agreement between Junts, ERC, and the PSOE that brought Pedro Sánchez to power. Thus, the lawyer for the European Commission has considered that the Moncloa "did not heed" some of the recommendations of the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on democratic matters: it did not take "the necessary time" to allow for dialogue with all stakeholders - including the judiciary and political parties - to achieve social and political "reconciliation" in the State. In fact, Urraca argued that it has had the opposite effect and "has deepened a virulent division."

The Spanish lawyer for the European Commission has also had no qualms about embracing one of the arguments of the Spanish right and has described the measure as "self-amnesty," both in relation to the case of Spanish President Pedro Sánchez, and to that of the leaders with whom he agreed to it and who have directly benefited from O y Puc. The lawyer for the European Commission pointed out that Sánchez "intends to protect the legal immunity" of his parliamentary partners. "They are [intentions] contrary to the rule of law," the representative of the community executive reiterated.

In this way, the European Commission has generally maintained all the arguments that it previously sent to the CJEU in a document to which ARA had access. It should be noted, however, that this report was prepared when the director general of Brussels' legal services was an official close to the PP, Daniel Calleja. In fact, the Spaniard Urraca was already working under Calleja's orders at the time and is one of those who signed the text. In any case, when asked by ARA, the European Commission does not want to enter into an assessment of Urraca's statements. "We never comment on ongoing judicial proceedings," Community sources limit themselves to responding.

Brussels also criticized the two-month deadline that the law gives the Court of Auditors to analyze a defendant's application for amnesty, asserting that it "makes it difficult" to guarantee the "verification" of the EU's financial interests if they were affected. Thus, it questions whether these time limits allow the competent judicial bodies to adopt procedural measures deemed necessary, such as obtaining additional evidence or hearing individuals. In turn, Carles Puigdemont's lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, argued that these deadlines are necessary so that the Spanish justice system can speed up its resolution of amnesty applications. He also asserted that the two-month deadline is indicative and that it has no consequences for the Court of Auditors if it fails to comply with them.

It does not affect the EU's financial interests.

Despite these statements, the Commission's lawyer also offered arguments that the pro-independence parties could use favorably. He was clear in stating that everything related to expenses derived from the Process did not negatively affect the financial interests of the European Union. Thus, he refuted the argument of Societat Civil Catalana, present in this case because it is an accusation before the Court of Auditors, that the secession of part of a Member State reduces its gross national income and, therefore, contributes to reducing its contribution to the EU's general accounts. "It does not show a sufficiently direct link between the illegalities in question and the EU's own resources," said the European Commission's lawyer.

However, one of the symptomatic images of the end of the process that the ECJ's main chamber had not seen before is that the lawyers for the pro-independence leaders, such as Boye, and the Spanish Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney General's Office have supported each other and agreed on almost all points. They categorically demanded that the law be a "self-amnesty." They also noted that any amnesty must be agreed upon by political leaders who lead parties and institutions. Brussels is amending itself for terrorism cases.

The session on amnesty at the CJEU consisted of two parts. In the morning, the debate focused on the preliminary rulings submitted by the Court of Auditors, and in the afternoon, on those raised by the National Court on the CDR case, related to the amnesty for the crime of terrorism and its accounting under European law. On this occasion, the Spanish lawyer for the European Commission was very ambiguous and even amended his position.

In one of the questions posed by one of the CJEU judges, Urraca responded bluntly that he "observes that the scope of application of the amnesty in terrorism is very broad and there is a great deal of uncertainty" regarding the scope of the cases eligible for it. However, when asked by another judge why he had reached this conclusion, the lawyer for the European Commission denied having made this statement and reversed himself. "I didn't say it was overly broad, but if it were overly broad, it could violate the useful effect of the [EU terrorism] directive," Urraca corrected herself, not taking a more conclusive position.

Following these back-and-forths, the question session dragged on for about an hour and a half, at which point tensions in the courtroom grew, especially between Urraca and the president of the CJEU, Koen Lenaerts. In one of these back-and-forths, a judge asked Urraca why she hadn't mentioned the Constitutional Court's ruling in favor of the amnesty throughout the hearing, and the European Commission lawyer took the opportunity to lash out: he criticized the Spanish court for not considering it a "self-amnesty" because it doesn't benefit its parliamentary partners.

The Moncloa sees the glass half full.

Despite criticism of the amnesty law, the Moncloa continues to maintain that the European Commission is not against it, and Spanish government spokesperson Pilar Alegría has argued that Madrid and Brussels agree on "both core issues." "On the one hand, it does not affect the financial interests of the European Union, and, of course, the amnesty does not contravene the anti-terrorism directive," the Minister of Education stated at a press conference.