The fleeting appearance of Carles Puigdemont in Barcelona on August 8, 2024, during Salvador Illa's investiture, has not been the only visit by the exiles to Catalonia in recent years. Despite the arrest warrant that hung over them, and which has now been lifted by judge Pablo Llarena, the former minister Lluís Puig also dared to step on Catalan soil on several occasions. He revealed this on Wednesday in an interview with RAC1, in which he assured that in the last 9 years he has visited "lands of the Ripollès, the Garrotxa, and the Empordà, but discreetly".

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.

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.

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.

Amnesty for Marta Rovira. The Barcelona Court has applied the law to the former secretary general of ERC, who still had an open case for disobedience following the 1-O, according to the court resolution to which ARA has had access. This is the case that the Supreme Court opened against her in 2018 and which led her to go into exile in Switzerland. At that time, the high court accused her of a crime of rebellion, which became sedition starting in 2019 and, after the reform of the Penal Code, was reduced to a crime of disobedience. In May of this year, the Supreme Court decided that it was not competent to resolve this case and transferred it to the Barcelona Court, which closed it this Tuesday by applying the amnesty law. Rovira faced a possible sentence of disqualification, but was no longer at risk of being sentenced to prison.

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 of now, the application of the amnesty law still has more than 150 cases pending judicial resolution. According to data from Alerta Solidària, there have also been 104 explicit denials of amnesty (certainly not to the police officers who beat citizens in the streets: they were the first to benefit from it). The law came into force in June 2024, more than two years ago. The justice system has been far less diligent in amnestying Catalan independence supporters than in exonerating Ayuso's boyfriend or taking down a State Attorney General. A matter of priorities, we must assume.Finally, it has also been necessary to force the amnesty for the crime of embezzlement (non-existent, given that none of those convicted/persecuted by Marchena and Llarena profited or benefited from the expenses of the referendum). The Spanish courts, by the way, disregarded the crime of embezzlement (which they themselves had put forward as an accusation) in the glorious times when patriotic talk show hosts made jokes about the toponym Schleswig-Holstein and some journalist of their ilk called for bombing German breweries for having “humiliated Spain” by not having handed over Puigdemont at the behest of the flawed requirements of the aforementioned Llarena. These are things worth remembering to keep in mind that the road that has led us here over these nine years has been long and stormy, but not full of knowledge, like the road to Ithaca that Cavafy asked for, but full of sound and fury, of arbitrariness and abuses, of wrong decisions and an etcetera as endless as it is ignominious.On the Catalan side, the space that the pro-independence political parties left open while they were busy killing each other stupidly has been filled with jingoistic charlatans, each one more absurd and toxic than the others, to the point where the emerging “pro-independence” force, destined according to everyone to sweep the next elections, is a fascist party that sides with Vox to insult the memory of President Companys. On the Spanish side, the thirst for revenge has led to the collapse of the thin partitions of the separation of powers, in state institutions populated by ideological heirs of Francoism and far-rightists of new coinage and the latest batch. The State also amnesties itself (above all itself) from the judicial persecution perpetrated against the independence movement, which, on the other hand, and as was to be expected, has been extended to anyone who might be suspected of treason against Spain, even if it concerns the president of the Spanish government. Nine years later, the amnesty satisfies no one, and the darkest versions of patriotism, both Spanish and Catalan, have taken over the landscape. But the most sinister thing of all is that the judiciary has become accustomed to correcting, and exercising, the functions of the executive and the legislative branches.

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 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.

In recent days, the amnesty has returned to the forefront of political news following the ECJ's endorsement and the six applications of the law made by the Supreme Court. Despite this, the pardon has not yet reached everyone. Beyond the well-known cases of the leaders of the 'Procés', who continue to await the Constitutional Court, there are other independentists who judges from both Madrid and Catalonia have excluded from the scope of the law. Unlike Carles Puigdemont and Oriol Junqueras, who have been excluded due to a convoluted argument by Pablo Llarena and Manuel Marchena regarding embezzlement, the other cases have not benefited because the justice system has considered that they had no connection with the independence movement.

The ruling of the CJEU on the amnesty law has caused a ripple effect. In recent days, the Supreme Court has rushed to close six cases that were on its table and had been pending for months. However, despite this sudden awakening, the fourteen people who have benefited from the penal oblivion law do not – strictly speaking – have anything to do with Luxembourg's endorsement. It was a filter that the high court implicitly set and which has ended up being the pretext for keeping all these cases frozen for nine months, given that last October the Constitutional Court had explicitly given the green light to apply the law.

Since it was put on the table, Vox has made the amnesty law one of its main battle horses, promising actively and passively that, if it comes to the Spanish government, it will "reverse" and "repeal" the norm immediately. The People's Party has also joined this idea, and its leader, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, in a dynamic that, analyzing the archives, is common among the populars: promising the repeal of PSOE laws to end up keeping them intact once they come to power —as happened in the past with the abortion law or same-sex marriage. Despite the constant insistence of the far-right on this supposed repeal, the threat clashes head-on with an insurmountable wall: the architecture of the rule of law. According to experts consulted by ARA, Vox's promise is legally unfeasible and the elimination of the law would have practically no effect on the accused. In fact, the party itself admits to ARA that it is aware of this legal wall.

The Supreme Court continues to apply the amnesty law drop by drop and after many months of waiting. The high court has now applied it to the first minister of the 1-O government: Meritxell Serret, who was convicted by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) to one year of disqualification and a fine of 12,000 euros for her participation in the organization of the October 1st referendum. In 2017, Serret was Minister of Agriculture. She later became Minister of Foreign Action with the government of Pere Aragonès and, subsequently, was the Government's delegate in Brussels while in exile. She returned to Catalonia in March 2021. “This chamber has decided that the acts for which she has been accused are declared amnestied,” concludes the Supreme Court's order to which ARA has had access. In this way, the former minister is exempted from all criminal responsibilities attributed to her.

776 days have passed since the amnesty law came into force. Since then, its application – with a dropper – has had to overcome multiple adversities from various courts along a tortuous path. Not going any further, on Friday the Supreme Court ended four cases that had been frozen for months. And the one who is now trying to play dumb is the Court of Auditors. The accounting case regarding the expenses of the Generalitat's external action and of October 1st, which affects 35 people, ended up in the Court of Justice of the European Union because the accountant minister expressed doubts about whether pardoning these acts was "compatible" with European law. However, the ruling from two weeks ago dismantled the argument that the independence of Catalonia could have caused a reduction in the European Union's own resources and gave the green light to fully archive the procedure.

The Supreme Court has applied the amnesty law to eight pro-independence supporters - grouped into four cases - who were pending it. The decision comes a week after the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a ruling that the high court tacitly decided to await. Formally, it had suspended the processing of the four cases following the question of constitutionality that it presented in July 2024. The Constitutional Court's ruling, which did not favor him, arrived in October 2025, but nine months have had to pass for the Supreme Court to have made a move. “The facts that gave rise to this procedure would not offer any doubt as to their subsumption in article 1 of the amnesty law. [...] Consequently, the objective scope of application is met,” conclude the four interlocutory decisions. They are three protesters convicted of aggravated public disorder in the protests following the verdict in the trial of the Catalan independence process, a mayor which attributed the competencies of the schools to make possible the 1-O and the four members of the Parliament's table – with Roger Torrent at the head – who were acquitted of having disobeyed the TC rulings.

Rubén Viñuales (Tarragona, 1983) left Ciutadans six years ago for the PSC, with whom he reached the mayoralty of Tarragona in 2023. Since then, he has governed in minority, but has been able to approve, with relative ease, the budgets by closing pacts with different parties. In this interview conducted at the Diari ARA newsroom, he talks about his city, but also about the far-right, judges, and the use of Catalan.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has just ruled that the amnesty law is not contrary to European law. It is an extremely significant decision. It dismantles the arguments of those who presented it as an attack on the rule of law and, above all, it highlights the sectarianism of right-wing judges and politicians who, not satisfied with opposing the amnesty, presented it as a legal absurdity unworthy of a democratic country. Ultimately, the Luxembourg court returns the discussion to its rightful terms: like many other political measures, one can agree or disagree with not ceasing to judicially prosecute the Procés.

The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Thursday regarding the amnesty has once again focused attention on who judges our representatives and how. Once the Constitutional Court (TC) determines its position, the final decision on the application of the law to the leaders of the 'procés' will fall to the Supreme Court (TS), given that they were or should have been tried by this body. But why go directly to Madrid?

The day after the European justice's endorsement of the amnesty everyone builds their own narrative. While the independence movement celebrates the ECJ's decision, but warns that this does not end the repression, both the Catalan and Spanish governments see their "reconciliation" agenda validated and claim the end of the "political crisis" between Catalonia and the State. Moreover, the Minister of Transport, Óscar Puente, has assured that if he "were Carles Puigdemont" he would return to Spain, "without a doubt". "We must face up to it once and for all," he said in an interview with RNE, as reported by Efe. This attitude has not pleased Junts at all, as the arrest warrant remains in effect and the former president would be arrested. "What misery and frivolity," replied the party's general secretary, Jordi Turull. After this, party sources consulted by ARA reaffirm their break with the Spanish government, also after the ECJ's ruling in favor of amnesty.