Mariano Bergés is the lawyer for Dolors Bassa. He defended the former Minister of Labor, Social Affairs and Families during the trial of the Procés and almost two years ago he filed an appeal for protection (recurs d'empara) to the Constitutional Court against Manuel Marchena's refusal to apply the amnesty law to her. The ruling has paved the way for the rest of the 1-O government: it will allow the return of Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Lluís Puig to Catalonia and will put an end to the disqualifications of Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Turull and Raül Romeva. The appeal argued that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the amnesty “frontally attacks” the “spirit and purpose” of the norm and “dangerously delves” into the legislative function with a maneuver that “entails the practical repeal” of the law.

The Constitutional Court plans to approve today the ruling by which it will order the Supreme Court to apply the amnesty once and for all. After this ruling, it will be necessary to wait for the Supreme Court to archive the case and for Judge Llarena to annul the arrest warrant for Puigdemont, Puig, and Comín so that they can return to Catalonia without the risk of being arrested.

3,263 days have passed since he left for Belgium and 847 days since the amnesty came into force, and Carles Puigdemont now has a clear path to return to Catalonia, although he will wait for the final archiving of the case to do so—in a few days or weeks. He will be able to put an end to almost nine years of exile after the Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to apply the amnesty law to the 1-O leaders in a “preferential and urgent” manner and, a few minutes later, Judge Pablo Llarena lifted the arrest warrant that had been in force since November 2017 and which he confirmed in July 2024 with a convoluted justification. The TC now concludes that pardoning the embezzlement is “the only conclusion reconcilable” with the “rules of logic and common sense” and reproaches Manuel Marchena for deciding to “evade the genuine meaning” of the amnesty with an “internally contradictory” interpretation that is “manifestly contrary” to the “purpose and spirit” of the law.

Normally, the Senate is a secondary chamber in the day-to-day politics in Madrid. However, this legislature the PP, which has an absolute majority there, has turned it into a scourge against the socialist government – the toughest control sessions for ministers were in the upper house – and the cradle of all the investigative commissions that affected the PSOE. However, in the upcoming Senate elections, also scheduled for November 29, not only are the majorities in the upper house at stake, but there is also, indirectly, a change of majorities in the Constitutional Court on the table.

With the permission of the Ceuta crisis and the demands for the right to housing, the Constitutional Court is once again on the front page of political news. Next week it will approve the ruling that contradicts the Supreme Court's criteria regarding the amnesty law and will impose on the high court that it apply the pardon to the embezzlement attributed to the October 1st referendum. The proposal drafted by the president of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, regarding Dolors Bassa's appeal directly orders the high court to backtrack and "declare amnestied" the crime of embezzlement in a "preferential and urgent" manner. Why was it so explicit? "From what I have read, at times the Supreme Court itself has stated that it would take into consideration the Constitutional Court's doctrine provided that the Constitutional Court had established a clear and precise doctrine. Therefore, we want to establish a clear and precise doctrine," argued Cándido Conde-Pumpido at a breakfast organized by Nueva Economía Fórum.

The president of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, fundamentally amends the Supreme Court's refusal to apply the amnesty law and considers that pardoning the embezzlement attributed to the October 1 referendum is "the only conclusion reconcilable" with the "rules of logic and common sense" and with an interpretation of the amnesty that "attends to its spirit and purpose" and its "own genesis." This is reflected in the report he has prepared, to which ARA has had access, regarding the appeal for constitutional protection (recurso de amparo) by Dolors Bassa, who was Minister of Labor, Social Affairs and Families during the October 1 referendum and is disqualified until 2031. The text argues that the "interpretation sponsored" by the Supreme Court was "clearly expansive," "opposed" to the "purpose and spirit" of the law and "contrary to the defendant," and establishes that Dolors Bassa's rights to effective judicial protection, to access public functions and positions, and to criminal legality were violated.

As we already told you yesterday, the Constitutional Court endorsed the amnesty law. Although the magistrates' deliberations are secret, it has been an open secret (as almost always happens in the Spanish judicial corridors): the progressive majority opposed the proposal of a conservative magistrate who was against it, and now the forecast is that in the week of October 5th, the TC will end up giving the green light to the amnesty. And it would be then that Judge Llarena would have to lift the arrest warrant for Puigdemont, Comín and Puig, and the Supreme Court would have to definitively archive all the cases related to the 'Procés' that it still keeps open. A very bitter medicine for an application of justice that is arrogant and proud.When would Puigdemont return?The ARA delegate in Madrid, Núria Orriols, specifies that the president in exile could choose between three moments to return: once the Constitutional Court has decided, after the withdrawal of Llarena's arrest warrant, or once the case has been definitively shelved. You can be sure that after spending 9 years in Belgium, it won't make a difference to Puigdemont if it takes a day or a month more, and that he will not return until it is clear that they will not arrest him. Another thing is that, once here, some random Peinado-style judge might find a traffic fine he didn't pay or revive the Aigües de Girona case. But beyond the criminal situation, there is the political one. And Puigdemont must decide what he wants to do: whether to go to Parliament to act as leader of the opposition, whether to run again or not, and in turn, Junts will have to see if it is capable of covering, from what was once Convergència, with its connection to big business, the entire independence movement beyond the size of its pocket.Meanwhile, yesterday the Mossos superintendent, Carles Hernández, head of the General Information Commissariat, the police branch on which that unfortunate infiltration of two agents into a teachers' assembly depended, appeared before the Parliament of Catalonia.

Since the amnesty law was approved in the Congress of Deputies 846 days ago, there has been a question that conditions Catalan politics and Spanish politics: when will Carles Puigdemont return to Catalonia as a free man? The return of the Junts leader has been hovering over the legislature from the very first day, it has been a repeated demand of the independence supporters and has become a hope for the PSOE to rebuild alliances and complicity with Miriam Nogueras's party in Madrid. Now the Constitutional Court has set the machinery in motion so that –definitively– it may be possible.

Some day the history of how the Spanish judiciary conspired to prevent the application of a law democratically approved by the Congress of Deputies, as was the amnesty for those convicted and accused for the 'Procés', will have to be reconstructed, but luckily more than three years after its entry into force, light is beginning to be seen at the end of the tunnel. This Tuesday, September 22, the majority in the Constitutional Court has materialized to remove the last obstacle placed by the Supreme Court, which is to consider that the crime of embezzlement is not eligible for amnesty. The plenary session of the TC has rejected the proposal of the conservative magistrate José María Macías where this thesis was maintained and Jordi Turull's appeal against the decision not to apply the amnesty to him was dismissed. Now Macías will have to draft another proposal in the opposite direction.

The Constitutional Court has activated the countdown for Carles Puigdemont's return to Catalonia. It has done so by endorsing the application of the amnesty law to the embezzlement attributed to the Procés, as ARA has learned. As expected, the progressive majority imposed its criteria and rejected the proposal of the conservative José María Macías, who was in favor of rejecting the appeal for protection (recurs d'empara) by Jordi Turull –Minister of the Presidency during the 1-O and current secretary general of Junts– and validating the criteria of the Supreme Court, which until now has refused to exonerate the crime of embezzlement. After an hour and a half of deliberation, he was left in the minority.

The Supreme Court judge who drafted the interlocutory decision that blocks the right to vote for thousands of Spaniards who obtained nationality by availing themselves of the Democratic Memory Law –adopting the PP's thesis that the Grandchildren Law is a “founded, real and serious danger” that could “gravely affect the objectivity and transparency” of the elections– is an old acquaintance of the independence movement. He is Antonio Narváez, who was a magistrate of the Constitutional Court from 2014 to 2023 and, therefore, played a prominent role during the years of the 'Procés'. His name resonates in Catalonia because in February 2021 he stepped aside from the debate on the amparo appeals of the political prisoners against the October 1st ruling. He had to recuse himself after the pro-independence leaders collectively requested his disqualification due to words he had uttered in November 2017.

“The interpretation of the Supreme Court cannot be labeled as surprising or unpredictable, much less capricious or the fruit of an alleged animosity.” The first version of the first draft of the Constitutional Court regarding the amnesty for embezzlement, prepared by the conservative José María Macías and to which ARA has had access, proposes rejecting the appeal for amparo presented by Jordi Turull against Manuel Marchena's decision not to grant him amnesty and to keep his disqualification in effect until 2030. The document, which will be debated at the plenary session of the TC on September 22, fully endorses the thesis of the high court, which avoided pardoning the embezzlement by alleging that the members of the 1-O Government enriched themselves because they did not pay for the referendum out of their own pockets: “The benefit can also be defined as the mere possibility of improperly disposing of funds not previously available, a fact that increases spending capacity and the consequent possibility of acquiring goods and services. Being able to dispose of what was not available already implies a benefit,” the draft argues.

Now it's for real: countdown for the amnesty for the leaders of the 'Procés'. Or that is what was felt this Thursday in the corridors of the opening of the judicial year at the Supreme Court. According to sources familiar with the high court who spoke to ARA, the application of the law to the 1-O Government, including former president Carles Puigdemont, could be triggered after the resolution of the first amparo appeal by the Constitutional Court, without needing to wait for them to be resolved individually one by one. The same voices argue that the first pronouncement “would generate a doctrine” that could extend to the rest of the cases. It is, precisely, the same thing that the president of the TC defended, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, a few days ago in an interview. That is to say, although Carles Puigdemont's case will not be the first one the TC addresses, the arrest warrant against him could be lifted when the Constitutional Court rules on the appeal of former minister Jordi Turull, which is the lead case and, in principle, will be the first to have a ruling, which all sources assume will be favorable. It would arrive in the month of October and would drag the rest along.

On the day of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, patron saint of seafarers, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the CJEU, delivered a long-awaited and at the same time highly significant ruling for Catalan and Spanish politics: according to European justice, the amnesty law approved by the Spanish Parliament more than two years ago affects neither the legal order nor the economic interests of the Union. The resolution is clear and unambiguous, leaving no doubt as to the scope of its application.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given a clear endorsement to the amnesty law this Thursday, which has triggered a wave of reactions uniting the independence movement and the Catalan and Spanish governments in a single demand: the immediate application of the law by the Spanish judiciary. The ruling has been received as a "resounding victory", although with the caution of knowing that the final executive decision rests with the state courts. In the words of former president Carles Puigdemont, "the game will no longer be played in Europe but at the Bernabéu, with the referees and the crowd leaning to one side".

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the amnesty was a very relevant step to achieve legal backing from Europe for the rule approved in the Congress of Deputies, as it is the first time it has ruled on the measure to end the criminal proceedings of the Procés. It has done so by endorsing the spirit of the legislator: the normalization of the political situation in Catalonia in favor of "reconciliation". However, what are the practical effects of this resolution? When will former president Carles Puigdemont be able to return? When will Oriol Junqueras and the former political prisoners stop being disqualified?

July 16th has been circled in red on the calendar for weeks as a key date for the amnesty of the leaders of 1-O. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has endorsed the law, accepting that it fits within European legislation and ruling out that affect the financial interests of the EU. However, the effects of this ruling will go further. The pronouncement is a prerequisite that the Constitutional Court has self-imposed to resolve the appeals for protection filed by Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, and the rest of the former councilors, waiting for Europe to provide an argumentative cushion to justify releasing them from criminal responsibility and also applying the law to them. But the path to get here will not be easy: even though a favorable pronouncement from the Constitutional Court is expected in the fall – last June endorsed the fit of the norm within the Magna Carta–, the ball will fall again on the roof of the Supreme Court, which will have the final say. For the moment, sources from the court consulted by ARA explain that, for now, they will not move because they have not made any request to the CJEU.In the Supreme Court, they are cryptic about the strategy they will follow, although sources emphasize that if there are very clear rulings from Europe and the Constitutional Court, they will follow them and there will be extinction of criminal liability. For the moment, they consider that there are none. There is an immediate precedent in which the Supreme Court has not acted with speed. Two years ago, the high court raised a question of unconstitutionality to the TC regarding the case of a demonstrator from Girona investigated for public disorder following the protests of October 2019. On October 8, 2025, that is, nine months ago, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal and gave the green light to the Supreme Court to put an end to the criminal case. Despite this, at present, there has still been no movement. Nor has the TC made any move to enforce its ruling, since, according to consulted sources, the young man's defense has not filed any execution incident. Official sources from the Supreme Court assure they have no information on the case.The precedent of the Canary Islands 

Beyond the case of Catalonia, there is an example that highlights the odyssey that fulfilling a sentence from the Constitutional Court can become. We must travel to La Laguna, a municipality on the island of Tenerife. In April 2020, a court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife annulled the article of the statutes of the Pontificia, Real y Venerable Esclavitud del Santísimo Cristo de la Laguna association, which prevented women from becoming members, alleging that it violated the right to equality. The woman who prompted this was Teresa Laborda.In January 2022, however, the Supreme Court overturned the sentence and upheld the exclusion of women from the association, which is defined as a "religious association of knights." Laborda took the case to the Constitutional Court, which ruled in her favor in November 2024. However, a year and a half has passed and there have been no changes, despite the court having blocked the multiple attempts by the association and the bishopric of Tenerife to prevent its application. Given the inaction, Laborda has filed two execution incidents with the TC, but both have been dismissed as premature.Rajoy's reform

The question is what powers the Constitutional Court has to enforce its rulings. What does the law say? The government of Mariano Rajoy, in view of the Process, carried out a reform in 2015 to give the TC execution capacity. During 2016 and 2017, Moncloa filed execution incidents before the TC because the Parliament's board admitted initiatives that unfolded the independence process – which was interpreted as a breach of a previous ruling – and the Constitutional Court passed the facts to the Prosecutor's Office, which filed numerous lawsuits for disobedience up to the macro-case of the Process for sedition.The law goes further and also gives powers to the TC to act ex officio: it can impose coercive fines of 3,000 to 30,000 euros – it was applied against the electoral board of 1-O – or suspend authorities that do not comply with resolutions. Therefore, the Constitutional Court has legal tools, but legal sources aware of the matter assure that the TC magistrates are usually not very belligerent with other judges. Will Cándido Conde-Pumpido openly confront the Supreme Court to enforce the amnesty?Avoid collision

Until now, the TC has wanted to avoid a direct clash with the Supreme Court. The proof is that it has refused to apply precautionary measures such as lifting the arrest warrant for Puigdemont, which would have allowed the former president to return to Catalonia while the proceedings on the appeal for protection and the case in the Supreme Court remain open. Doing so would have implied an unprecedented battle between the Supreme Court and the TC, which Conde-Pumpido has avoided. Of course, the president of the Constitutional Court has publicly warned that "all public authorities are obliged to comply" with what the TC resolves.Politically, this scenario, according to various sources consulted, was addressed at the negotiating table between the PSOE and Junts before the breakdown, but it went nowhere. And here also lies the distancing between Puigdemont and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, as sources familiar with the matter point out that the former Spanish president always conveyed high optimism about the fulfillment of the PSOE-Junts agreements, which later did not correspond to reality.The other possibility: go to Europe

The other card the Supreme Court can play is to go to the ECJ after the Constitutional Court's ruling. An unprecedented move that until now only one court has made: the Seville Court in the ERO case. After being reviewed by the TC, it raised a preliminary ruling to Luxembourg because it considered that the annulment of the sentences of Manuel Chaves and José Antonio Griñán implied a "systemic risk of impunity".The Supreme Court could repeat a similar move in the case of the independence leaders. With what argument? What the Luxembourg court will do next week is rule whether October 1st affected the EU's financial interests, but the Supreme Court has another argument on which Europe will not have ruled yet: it maintains that there is embezzlement because the leaders of the 'Procés' saved themselves the cost of the referendum from their own pockets. "An interpretation that considered the crime of embezzlement to be amnestiable would force us to raise the preliminary ruling in the future," the Supreme Court warned almost two years ago in one of its rulings.

]]>

Until a few days ago, when a Catalan family could not pay their electricity bill, the supplier company was obliged to consult social services before cutting off their electricity. If a situation of vulnerability was confirmed, there was no cut-off. This was the precautionary principle, one of the pillars of the Catalan law on energy poverty of 2015. Now the Constitutional Court has annulled this obligation, considering that it encroaches on state competencies. The decision puts an end to one of the most ambitious protections against energy poverty that existed in the State. But it also forces us to face an uncomfortable question: why do we continue to wait for a family to reach their limit before identifying that they need help?Without this obligation, protection depends mainly on the social bonus, the state discount on the electricity bill. The problem is that, to benefit from it, you need to know it exists, process it, and prove you are entitled to it. And we already know what happens when access to a right depends on this process: many people fall by the wayside. In Catalonia, about eight out of ten households that could benefit from the social bonus do not receive it.This does not mean that the model that is now falling was perfect. The same family could obtain a different response depending on the municipality where they lived, due to differences in criteria, and in a large part of the territory these social reports of poverty risk were issued drop by drop. Protection depended too often on the capacity of social services or, simply, on the place of residence. But, with all its limitations, it had a virtue rarely seen in our social protection system: it was one of the few doors that did not require the family to find them first.. In Catalonia, nearly eight out of ten households that could benefit from the social bonus AOC to detect situations of energy poverty by cross-referencing data between administrations. The technology is there. The institutional capacity, too. What is not yet automatic is the decision to use it.The ruling removes a valuable protection, but also forces us to look beyond the mechanisms we have lost. We know that the main loophole in energy protection is not legal, but administrative: thousands of households continue to not receive the aid they are entitled to. We also know how to fix it. The question is no longer whether we have alternatives, but whether we are willing to apply them.

]]>

A decade after it came into force, the Constitutional Court (TC) has annulled two articles of the 2015 Catalan law that prevents companies from cutting off basic supplies such as electricity and gas to vulnerable consumers. In its justification, the magistrates point out that the norm is incompatible with the state system of protection in case of non-payment due to necessity and, therefore, declares that the Parliament has overstepped its bounds and encroached on competences. The ruling does not, for now, mean immediate cut-offs, as there is a moratorium in force at the Spanish level that prevents these basic services from being cut off until December 31.

]]>

The possibility of former president Carles Puigdemont returning to Catalonia in the summer is fading. The reason is that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has not yet communicated the date on which it will rule on the amnesty. The usual practice of this body is to give a month's notice, so that the Constitutional Court (TC) no longer expects a resolution on the preliminary questions regarding embezzlement before June. This European justice calendar complicates the prospects of the TC being able to resolve the Junts leader's appeal before the August holidays, as confirmed to ARA by various sources from the Constitutional Court.

]]>