The 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.

Following the European Union's Advocate General's opinion in favor of the amnesty, it is expected that the CJEU will rule in the same vein in the coming weeks, thus giving a definitive boost to its implementation. The reality is that 522 days after the law's approval, the pace of its application is exasperating due to delaying tactics not only by the Supreme Court against the main leaders, but also by many judges against various defendants. It is particularly curious, then, that the first group to benefit en masse from the amnesty was that of police officers prosecuted for mistreatment or excessive use of force. As many as 164 officers have already been granted amnesty. It wasn't until last May, the date of the latest data from Òmnium's count, that the number of activists granted amnesty surpassed that of police officers, reaching 178. According to the organization's data, of the 726 people with criminal cases and those under investigation by the Court of Auditors, only these 178 have been granted amnesty, while 9 others have not. In 35 cases, amnesty requests have been directly denied; in 48, a response from the European Union is pending; in 75, there has been no response yet; and, notably, in 332, there is no record that the amnesty process has even begun. In the case of individuals with administrative sanctions, primarily fines, only 21 out of 884 cases have been granted amnesty. These figures demonstrate that the Spanish justice system is dragging its feet on this issue and, with few exceptions, most judges follow the Court's lead on amnesty, employing all sorts of delaying tactics. This is why the EU Advocate General's opinion on Thursday is so important. Because when their arguments are found in a ruling by the CJEU, the Supreme Court and the rest of the courts will be left without arguments, since it will have been proven that the amnesty is not only constitutional, as the Constitutional Court itself ruled, but also that it does not contradict the legislation or values ​​of the European Union (on the contrary, because the Advocate General spoke of "context").

The battle for amnesty is being fought on several fronts, and the opinion issued today by the EU Advocate General, endorsing the amnesty and only raising objections to the implementation timetable, is a balm for its two main proponents, Pedro Sánchez and Carles Puigdemont, but in different ways. Sánchez's battle is against the People's Party (PP) and the judiciary, while Puigdemont's is against those who still haven't forgiven him for the investiture of the Spanish Socialist president and are demanding that he bring down the Spanish legislature. The EU's endorsement of the amnesty weakens many of the PP's arguments against the law, but it won't prevent the Supreme Court's delaying tactics. And at a time of maximum parliamentary weakness, the news has been received almost euphorically by an executive branch that staked its entire term on the amnesty. Perhaps without realizing it, Dean Spielmann has just poured more fuel into Pedro Sánchez's tank, who insists on clinging to power for another two years in La Moncloa.

It is magnificent news that the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union has endorsed the amnesty law. The end of exile and disqualification is one step closer. But it will not be the last, because when it comes to Catalan independence, what Congress may approve, what the Constitutional Court may validate, or what the EU may approve is merely an opinion to the ears of a judgmental court that lives in a state of perpetual judicial mode.How scary!andWhatever he can do, let him do.

Four of the twelve judges of the Constitutional Court will expire this December, placing the PSOE and PP in a new negotiation to renew the supreme interpreter of the Constitution. A three-fifths majority in the Senate is required, and therefore, the two major parties must reach an agreement. By the end of 2025, the current president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, and judges Ricardo Enríquez and María Luisa Balaguer, appointed by the upper house in 2017, will have completed nine years as members of this body. As for José María Macías, he was appointed in July 2024 to cover 2022 for health reasons—and will be eligible for reappointment because he will not have completed a third of his term. How will the changes affect the resolution of appeals regarding the amnesty?

Eugeni Gay (Barcelona, ​​1946) speaks to the ARA the day after the Constitutional Court's decision to endorse the amnesty. He was a member of the court from 2001 to 2012 and also its vice president.

Just because it was a decision that was announced doesn't make it any less important. The amnesty law approved by Congress in May of last year has been declared constitutional by the Constitutional Court, and therefore there are no longer any doubts about its legality. Consequently, it is now up to the ordinary courts, and specifically the Supreme Court, to apply it in its entirety, remaining as faithful as possible to the text and the legislator's will.

Before the sentence was made public, Felipe González had already taken it upon himself to call it "garbage," "political corruption," and "barrabassada." And with all solemnity, he announced that he would not vote for the PSOE if Pedro Sánchez is the candidate, nor as long as it is led by someone who participated in the amnesty. This is the latest episode in a long-standing estrangement, which began, in fact, in the Zapatero era. His tragedy is that he cannot even approach the PP, the party to which he is undoubtedly closest today, without losing the little credit he retains and betraying his biography.

Conceptually, amnesties are granted to correct abuses of power committed by the state. This answers the question posed by Felipe González, who was the first to react (with a bitter tone, for a change) to the Constitutional Court's ruling in favor of the amnesty law, on behalf of all the patriots of good Spain: "How is it possible to ask for forgiveness from criminals?" he asked.

We are piling up issues.

We have leaks about the amnesty, which we'll discuss shortly. But before that, I can't have to cover a Ukrainian military operation that has the world aghast (and worried about Russia's reaction).

Marchena, Llarena, and their accomplices have already announced that, whatever the Constitutional Court decides about the amnesty law, they will act like they're waiting for it to rain, leaving hundreds of defendants in the process (among whom there is not a single police officer who stole the voters) in a situation of temporary defenselessness. Puigdemont and Oriol Junqueras: one cannot set foot in his home, and the other is disqualified. Marchena speaks of "rebellion"; and former judge Martín Pallín has confirmed that we have "rebellious" judges, a contradiction that seems only possible in Spain.

This Friday marked one year since the approval of the amnesty law in the Congress of Deputies, a bittersweet anniversary because while many people have already benefited from it—45% of those who have requested it, according to Òmnium data—there are also many requests that have not been granted. Among them are the police officers accused of bodily harm in connection with the 1-O referendum, and among the latter are the main political leaders of the process. The law is being debated in the Constitutional Court. Be that as it may, the law is making progress, but it is true that from a political standpoint, it will not have achieved its objective until former president Carles Puigdemont can freely return to Catalonia. A progressive majority should have this endorsement, but this will not mean its immediate application, since the Supreme Court considers that the law is not applicable to cases of embezzlement. A second legal battle will then open, which could also have a European scope if the Supreme Court submits a preliminary ruling to the CJEU. The amnesty, which is currently being implemented by its pro-independence partners, is now bogged down and without a clear timeline. It's possible that the amnesty won't be implemented until the end of the mandate, with the real danger that the legislature will end early and the new right-wing government will seek a way to torpedo it.

The Constitutional Court plans to hold a special plenary session to rule on the amnesty law on June 24, 25, and 26. The president of the court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, already said a few days ago at a breakfast at the Ateneo de Madrid that would deliberate on the amnesty before the summer And, with the calendar on the table, the "most likely" option is the week of Sant Joan, as TV3 has reported and ARA has confirmed. when he was a vocal opponent of the amnesty law and Juan Carlos Campo—from the progressive sector—abstained because he also spoke out when he was Minister of Justice. Thus, the progressive majority is expected to prevail by 6 to 4.

New maneuver by the right wing of the Constitutional Court to halt the amnesty. Three judges proposed by the People's Party (PP) to the court, Enrique Arnaldo, Concepción Espejel, and César Tolosa, filed a petition this Monday requesting that a preliminary ruling be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) before issuing a ruling, or else wait for Luxembourg to resolve the existing ones. For example, those from the National Court regarding the case of the members of the CDR (Republic of Catalonia) accused of terrorism, and that from the Court of Auditors regarding the October 1st referendum and the foreign action of the Generalitat (Catalan Government) during the process. They believe that there are aspects of the amnesty law that may be contrary to European law and that, before analyzing the constitutionality of the law, the CJEU should rule. However, sources consulted by ARA believe this attempt to torpedo the amnesty has little scope.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals against the ruling issued by investigating judge Pablo Llarena, who decided not to apply the amnesty law to former President Carles Puigdemont for the crime of embezzlement of public funds. This ruling also affects former ministers Toni Comín and Lluís Puig. The ruling was challenged by the State Attorney, the Public Prosecutor's Office, Vox, and the defense attorneys for Puigdemont and Comín in various ways. All appeals are therefore dismissed, and the Constitutional Court will have the final say. Judges Vicente Magro, Eduardo de Porres, and Susana Polo consider that Llarena's decision "does not contravene the will of the legislator." Thus, they clear the way for former President Puigdemont and Comín to file an appeal for protection of constitutional rights in the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court is seeking legitimacy three months before it issues a ruling on the amnesty. And the court's president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, asserted his position this Monday in an unusual format: invited by the Ateneo de Madrid, he gave a speech and took questions from journalists to say that "questioning the Constitutional Court is questioning the Constitution and the democratic system." Conde-Pumpido's idea is for the ruling on the PP's appeal to arrive before the summer, a "reasonable" timeframe, he said, given that the law came into force in July 2024. Thus, the Constitutional Court would rule a year later.

An ANC partner He was summoned to testify as a suspect in the second week of April for a crime of disobedience against the Mossos d'Esquadra (Catalan police) for his participation in the reception of former president Carles Puigdemont on the day of Salvador Illa's inauguration. On that August 8, riot police arrested two people and identified nineteen more as they tried to enter Ciutadella Park to access the Parliament. Ignasi is one of the nineteen people the Mossos d'Esquadra identified after spraying him and the rest of the protesters with pepper spray to block their entrance.

Judge María Luisa Segoviano was the only member of the Constitutional Court (CC) who attended the swearing-in of two new Supreme Court judges on Monday. The rest met to address the unprecedented conflict that has erupted within the institution and has occupied virtually the entire week. This is the challenge posed by the High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) and the Provincial Court of Seville: they intend to circumvent TC rulings by submitting their preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In fact, the Madrid court has already made the request in Luxembourg. This is the avenue the Supreme Court has already hinted it would use to further postpone the implementation of the amnesty law and, therefore, may also delay the process. the return of Carles Puigdemont. What's going on?

The time is over when the Constitutional Court was practically an extension of the PP and the PP, usually satisfied with its decisions, demanded "respect" from those who dared to criticise them. With Mariano Rajoy as president, for example, the Spanish government used it as a battering ram against the independence process and before that, by collecting signatures against the Statute, the PP had put the future of autonomous Spain in the hands of the court of guarantees. It was irrelevant whether there were judges whose mandate had expired or even if the president had been a member of a political party (Francisco Pérez de los Cobos admitted having been a member of the PP). But all this has passed into a better life now that the TC has a progressive majority for the first time since 2013.