The Constitutional Court takes a stand against Puigdemont: it maintains the arrest warrant while considering amnesty.

MadridThe Constitutional Court is avoiding preemptively ruling on amnesty for Carles Puigdemont and, while studying the merits of the case, is refusing to lift the arrest warrant that prevents the former president of the Generalitat from returning to Catalonia as a free man. The Court rejected on Tuesday the precautionary measures requested by Puigdemont, Toni Comín, and Lluís Puig as part of their appeals for protection of fundamental rights against the Supreme Court's refusal to apply the amnesty law to them. The Constitutional Court considers that granting their request would result in a "disregard for the general interest," given that there is still an "open criminal case" concerning "serious crimes." Therefore, it is necessary to protect "the effectiveness" of the investigation led by Pablo Llarena, which "must take precedence" over the "prejudice" to the fundamental rights denounced by Puigdemont, Comín, and Puig. Furthermore, it argues that making a decision now "would amount to a premature resolution" of the substance of the matter and would imply a "premature judgment" on the application of the amnesty. The decision is thethe same one that took The Constitutional Court is currently reviewing the cases of Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, and Dolors Bassa, who are demanding the lifting of their disqualifications, which are in effect until 2030 and 2031. Does this mean Puigdemont's return is delayed? The Constitutional Court is expected to make a decision on the merits of the case in the coming months, and a favorable ruling would open the door for the former president to return to the Principality. By then, the Court of Justice of the European Union is also expected to have ruled on the amnesty, after the Advocate General endorsed the law by the end of 2025. The Constitutional Court's final verdict will have to determine whether the alleged misuse of public funds by the October 1st government is upheld. Whatever the Constitutional Court decides, the ball will return to the Supreme Court's court, which has repeatedly ruled against it, arguing that Puigdemont and the ministers enriched themselves through the October 1st referendum because they did not cover their expenses with their own assets. It remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will do if the Constitutional Court contradicts its own doctrine.

The arguments against the precautionary measures

The Constitutional Court appeals to jurisprudence to justify that the adoption of precautionary measures is "an exception to the general rule" and, therefore, the suspension must be interpreted "restrictively," even more so if it "interferes" with ongoing judicial proceedings. It also emphasizes that the Constitutional Court's doctrine grants a "presumption of validity" to the acts of public authorities. In contrast, in the appeal for protection of fundamental rights filed by the leader of Junts last July, lawyer Gonzalo Boye argued that—unlike what the Constitutional Court says—granting precautionary measures would not anticipate the final decision, but was an "indispensable measure" to prevent an "irreparable constitutional harm." Indeed, if he were to set foot in Spain, he would end up in prison: this would have "irreversible consequences" and would render a hypothetical favorable ruling "merely symbolic without effective restorative capacity."

The document, which ARA obtained, also drew a distinction between the precautionary measures requested by Junqueras, Turull, Bassa, and Romeva. In their cases, there was a "final conviction," whereas in Puigdemont's case, the investigation remains open—frozen because he is still in exile in Waterloo. Therefore, in the absence of a "fair trial" and in a "manifestly politicized" case, precautionary measures had to be adopted "without delay" to prevent a "risk of immediate arrest."

The TSJC's appeal against the amnesty in Jové, Salvadó and Garriga is overturned

Later, the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional challenge filed by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) against the amnesty in the case of José María Jové, José Luis Salvadó, and Natàlia Garriga. It dismissed the challenge because the TSJC had also submitted a preliminary ruling request to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which resulted in an "undue overlap." The TSJC would have had to wait for Luxembourg to issue its ruling.