The Constitutional Court refuses to lift the arrest warrant against Puigdemont.

MadridThe Constitutional Court (CC) on Tuesday rejected Carles Puigdemont's request for the urgent lifting of the arrest warrant against him in Spanish territory. As previously reported by ARA, the full court of the judicial authority admitted the former Catalan president's appeal for protection, but opposed the precautionary measures he requested: forcing Supreme Court Judge Pablo Llarena to allow the Junts leader's return without hearing the opinions of the various parties. What the TC is doing now is opening a case on the matter and will ask the parties involved whether the arrest warrant should be withdrawn before ruling on the merits of the case, which is whether the amnesty law applies to the embezzlement case against Puigdemont.

The decision taken by the plenary session this Tuesday is the one that was expected a month ago, although Puigdemont's own defense delayed it when he submitted a document requesting the recusal of three magistrates from the conservative sector: Concepción Espejel, José María Macías and Enrique Arnaldo. Two weeks ago the TC unanimously dismissed the recusals, something that was already known would happen, so there was a certain amount of discussion within the body. feeling of bewilderment over the movement of lawyer Gonzalo Boye, which only served to delay the resolution of the case.

Unlike the appeals for protection of constitutional rights filed by those already convicted in the October 1st referendum—Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull, and Dolors Bassa—which were unanimously admitted for processing, four of the five right-wing judges voted against the appeal. They consider the appeal for protection of constitutional rights filed by Puigdemont, Toni Comín, and Lluís Puig to be premature because their case is still under investigation, although the majority of the court does not consider this to be the case. The Supreme Court's decision not to grant him the amnesty has no further internal recourse within the Supreme Court, and therefore the path is open to the Constitutional Court.

Also on the agenda for the TC plenary session is the resolution of the question of unconstitutionality that the Supreme Court raised against the amnesty granted to an activist accused of causing public disorder following protests in Girona against the ruling in the October 1 trial. This is the first response that the judicial body will give to the Spanish high court regarding this law, although it will basically apply the doctrine it already established when it ruled on the PP's appeal in June. This issue will be addressed between Wednesday and Thursday, given that it is the penultimate item on the agenda. The last is another appeal of unconstitutionality, the one filed by the Parliament of Aragon against the law. Along the same lines, it will be dismissed following the criteria already decided, although some specific issues that arise will need to be resolved.

Embezzlement

For example, the Aragon Parliament argues that the section of the law that provides for amnesty for embezzlement, provided there is no enrichment, is unconstitutional, arguing that it goes against the interests of the European Union and Spain's commitments to European funds. Constitutional Court sources consulted by ARA already warn from the outset that the link between the two is not fully understood, but they already advance that this argument will be rejected. The mention of the crime of embezzlement should not be interpreted as a clue as to the decision that may be taken in the appeals for protection of the leaders of the 1-O referendum—they are convicted or prosecuted for that crime—because this will be an abstract response to what the Aragon Parliament is proposing, but not to the application of the law.