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.

Mid-morning, the media echoed the ECJ ruling that endorsed the amnesty law. On Spanish private television, the news caused them some bewilderment. The ruling shattered their condemnatory narrative of the last nine years, and they didn't know how to manage this new informational course. The contrarian reaction became evident in the time they dedicated to the news. Puigdemont has been one of the protagonists against whom more hours have been invested, and this time, they didn't dwell much on the analysis. On Espejo público, with Griso on vacation, they opted to ask themselves: “¿Vuelve Puigdemont?” and “¿Está más cerca el regreso de Carles Puigdemont a España?” Beyond speculating on the answer, presenter Lorena García quickly turned the page on the topic to address new issues. Ana Terradillos did the same on La mirada crítica on Telecinco. As soon as the reporter, standing in front of the National High Court, announced the sentence, the presenter got down to business when it came to moving on to new morning matters: “Bueno, pues este es el titular. Y ahora les dejamos con otras imágenes de la mañana”. On Vamos a ver, the following program, they didn't say a word about the news. On Cuatro, they also wondered about Puigdemont's return with on-screen captions. On En boca de todos, the sensationalist Nacho Abad asked for a live assessment from the PP spokesperson, Esther Muñoz, who downplayed her party's interest in the judges' decisions. Meanwhile, Pilar Rahola listened, laughing, from another box on the screen. Rahola noted the spokesperson's evasiveness and, after outlining the new judicial landscape that was emerging from now on, posed a challenging question to the presenter: “¿A quién le interesa más que venga ahora Puigdemont? ¡Te aseguro que al PSOE no es!” Nacho Abad, instead of answering, abruptly ended the topic: “¡Lo dejamos ahí! ¡Lo dejamos ahí! ¡Perdonad!”, and cut the connection to address another current issue about Vox. 

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is a stark reminder that the trial of the Procés was a charade where everything was seen: false testimonies, which everyone knew were false, were given with impunity; prosecutors were seen reciting from memory what the police officers summoned to testify were supposed to say; defense witnesses were questioned by the court; defense evidence could not be presented to support the veracity of the defendants' statements; for the first time, private prosecution was brought by a far-right party; civil rights and human rights organizations suffered all sorts of obstacles in carrying out their supervisory task, and a very long etcétera of irregularities that resulted in a judgment confirming Spain as a country with political prisoners and exiles. Justice was not sought, but revenge for a mobilization (the ballot boxes of October 1st) that exposed the democratic shortcomings of a state that, faced with legitimate dissent, only knew how to resort to repression.The ruling, without explicitly saying so, encompasses all of this. And more: Spain lost its full democracy status in the index of The Economist, and became a flawed democracy, precisely because of the response it gave to Catalan independence, a brutal response in all aspects: police and judicial, but also institutional and political (King Felipe VI's speech on October 3rd, the application – invented on the fly – of Article 155). It became clear that Spain has a serious internal problem: years later it regained the label of full democracy, but the development of events has shown that it is a term that is too big for a state where the police fabricate false evidence against the enemies of the ultranationalist right, where citizens are spied on with programs like Pegasus (recently we have learned about the cases of David Fernàndez and Carles Riera), where a rapper has been in prison for more than five years for a satirical song, where the gag law is never repealed, or where just yesterday two activists in Mallorca who had painted slogans against tourist saturation were arrested and accused by the Civil Guard of belonging to a criminal gang.Or a state, also, in which justice not only acts in part, but refuses to apply a current law such as the amnesty law, now also reinforced by the CJEU ruling. Predictably, now the Constitutional Court will rule in favor of the appeals for protection filed by exiled pro-independence leaders convicted of embezzlement for the organization of the October 1st referendum, and the Supreme Court will try to torpedo it, because the high Spanish judiciary does not even try to conceal the political affiliations of judges and prosecutors. The CJEU magistrates are obviously also aware of the political content of their ruling. They, however, have no interest in favoring some political parties over others: rather, they say that what is at stake in Spain is democracy itself, and the rule of law.

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 supposed PSOE plot led by Santos Cerdán and Leire Díez also showed interest in the amnesty law. A 372-page Civil Guard report, which ARA has accessed, contains references to the law and the judicial persecution of independence supporters. Specifically, the Central Operative Unit (UCO) found a Word document prepared in November 2024 by the so-called PSOE plumber" who alluded directly to José Manuel Villarejo. It stated that the retired Spanish police commissioner, who these days is on trial for the Kitchen case, had the "proof that would demonstrate the corruption" of Manuel Marchena, who was the president of the trial of the Procés and was one of the judges who blocked the amnesty for Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Turull, Dolors Bassa, and Raül Romeva –Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín, and Lluís Puig were also not granted amnesty by decision of Pablo Llarena–.

Two years have already passed since the final approval of the amnesty law, but the hottest part is still to come. For example, it has only been recognized in just over half (52%) of the cases of activists where it should have been applied, according to data provided by Alerta Solidària. 181 protesters have benefited from it, and also 64 pro-independence political officials. In total, 245 people have had their criminal liability extinguished, but there are 257 who are still pending, either because they have been rejected outright or because the courts have not yet ruled. The basic difference arises when compared to the police officers who were indicted: only 4 out of 162 have been denied amnesty.

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).