The European justice will rule on the amnesty on July 16th

BrusselsA date has now been set for the European justice's final ruling on the amnesty law. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) announced this Thursday that on July 16 it will rule on the preliminary references submitted by the Court of Auditors for the application of the amnesty in the case of expenses related to the referendum of October 1, 2017, and the National Court for the case of Operation Judas against the CDRs. The verdict from Luxembourg will be key to the judicial future of dozens of pro-independence leaders and activists, such as the leader of Junts, Carles Puigdemont, and that of Esquerra, Oriol Junqueras.

The Constitutional Court is also awaiting the CJEU's ruling, which wants to see Luxembourg's verdict before ruling on the appeals filed by exiled pro-independence leaders convicted of embezzlement for organizing the referendum of October 1, and who appealed against the Supreme Court's decision to deny them the application of the amnesty. Although the Constitutional Court initially expected to rule on the appeal next month, sources close to the court itself report that it finally plans to issue an opinion in September or October, as its last plenary session before going on vacation is on July 20.

The preliminary references being evaluated by the European court ask about the application of the amnesty for expenses related to October 1 and for the CDRs accused of terrorism, but it is expected that Luxembourg, in order to answer the doubts of the Spanish courts, will also have to rule on the merits of the issue: does the law agreed upon by Sánchez and the main pro-independence parties comply with European Union law?

In this regard, the Advocate General of the CJEU, who issues non-binding opinions but which usually indicate the direction of the final ruling, largely supported the measure, ruling that the nature of an amnesty is that of an exceptional measure and that it applies in specific cases, such as that of the post-Procés. Therefore, the Advocate General of the CJEU does not consider that it puts legal certainty at risk nor does it constitute discrimination on ideological grounds. "The amnesty law allows for a sufficiently clear line to be drawn between conduct eligible for amnesty and conduct that, due to its seriousness, must continue to be subject to the criminal penalty regime established by European legislation itself," added the lawyer.

Although he assured that the law is contrary to Community legislation because it restricts the maximum period that the measure gives the Court of Auditors to analyze the request of a defendant to benefit from it to only two months, he denied that it goes against the financial interests of the EU and defended its objective of political and social reconciliation. "It does not constitute a self-amnesty," concluded the lawyer, thus contradicting the arguments of the Spanish right and who defended the same European Commission in the hearing of the trial in Luxembourg last summer. Thus, the Advocate General of the CJEU completely dismantles the argument of the Spanish justice system, which considers that the expenses related to the process aimed at the independence of Catalonia would have caused a reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) – a reference index used to calculate the wealth of a country – and, therefore, of the EU and its budget, which would force the other member states to increase their contribution to the European bloc.

Taking into account the position of the CJEU's legal officer, Puigdemont's lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, is confident that the court in Luxembourg will defend the amnesty. "I believe that the ruling will prove us right," he said in an interview with Catalunya Ràdio, as reported by ACN. Boye even believes that the final ruling "will narrow the general counsel's criteria a little further to close off any possibility of new preliminary rulings reaching him." However, the leader of Junts' lawyer is less confident about the Spanish justice system and whether it will heed the Luxembourg ruling. "They can always surprise. [...]. State courts are another matter, they even rewrite the law," he added.