Brussels questions the "general interest" of the amnesty before the CJEU: "It deepens a virulent division."

LuxembourgThe European Commission's hot and cold response at the amnesty hearing in Luxembourg. On the one hand, Brussels argued this Tuesday in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the expenses arising from Proceso do not harm the financial interests of the European Union; and, on the other, it questioned "the general interest" of a law resulting from a political agreement between the pro-independence parties and the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) that brought Pedro Sánchez to power. "It does not appear that the amnesty law effectively responds to an objective of general interest," declared European Commission representative and lawyer Carlos Urraca in Luxembourg.

However, Brussels' criticism of the amnesty does not end there. The EU executive's lawyer also criticizes the Moncloa government for "not heeding" some of the Venice Commission's recommendations: it did not take "the necessary time" to allow for dialogue with all stakeholders—among others, the judiciary and other political parties, such as the People's Party (PP)—to achieve the "stated" objective. Urraca even asserts that it has had the opposite effect and "has deepened a virulent division."

In this way, the European Commission has generally maintained all the arguments it previously submitted in a document to which ARA had access. However, this report was prepared when the Director General of Legal Services in Brussels was headed by an official close to the People's Party (PP), Daniel Calleja. In fact, the Spaniard Urraca was already working under Calleja at the time and is one of those who signed the text.

On the other hand, Brussels has also criticized the deadline given by law to the Court of Auditors to analyze a defendant's application for amnesty. 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.

After lunch, the main chamber of the CJEU will analyze another case of twelve defendants who face prison sentences of between eight and eleven years for terrorist offenses. Among the popular accusations are Vox and, among others, the Spanish Association of the Civil Guard. One of the main preliminary rulings concerns whether the distinction made by the amnesty law between terrorist acts—whether or not they have caused serious human rights violations—complies with EU law.

In fact, this nuance was one of the most delicate points in the amnesty negotiations, and the pro-independence parties demanded that it also cover those accused of Operation Judas. However, the National Court considers that the law does not "specify" which acts are more or less serious and violates the principle of legal certainty. It also believes that the regulations cover actions that European law clearly defines as terrorism. Therefore, the court is asking Luxembourg, which will have to make a ruling.

However, Puigdemont's lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, predicted in statements to the press just before the main chamber of the CJEU that it will be a "relatively short" hearing because "no one is interested." "It's a local matter; the amnesty law is a problem in Spain, not in Europe," he asserted.