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.

Today we have published an article that begins by saying “Brussels reminds…”.Specifically, “Brussels reminds Spanish courts that they must apply the CJEU ruling on the amnesty”. The news could continue by saying “Brussels reminds and Madrid disobeys”, or “Brussels reminds and Madrid doesn't remember”, because the disregard shown by the Court of Auditors, the National Court, or the Supreme Court towards the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the full conformity with European law of the amnesty law is nothing but disobedience. The meaning of it all is clear: President Puigdemont's return to Catalonia is an humiliation for the entire political, media, police, and judicial state apparatus, especially the judicial one, which turned the prosecution of hundreds of Catalans into a reason to live with the rojigualda flag hanging on the balcony, and a merit for advancement. And, therefore, they will prolong the punishment as much as they can, because exiles and disqualifications prevent a strategic reorganization of the independence movement, which, however much it is here and no longer leaves, has not only failed to find new forms of widely accepted expression or new leaderships, but has also revealed the worst face of disorientation and division.The Spanish obstructionist impulse, which refers, therefore, to its essences, also has a tactical component which is the countdown waiting for the fall (and who knows if prosecution) of Pedro Sánchez, which would place the mechanisms of the executive and part of the legislative in the same hands as the judicial.

The first sign that the application of the amnesty will not be easy despite the endorsement of the European justice system has been given by the Court of Auditors, which has refused to apply it from the outset, despite being one of those directly named in last week's ruling. The lawyer for Carles Puigdemont, Gonzalo Boye, has filed a brief with the European Commission denouncing Spain for non-compliance with the amnesty and warning of the Court of Auditors' maneuver. In a brief first reported by Vilaweb and to which ARA has had access, he denounces that the deadline for issuing the amnesty has been suspended de facto and that a procedure for allegations has been opened which he not only considers unnecessary, but also asserts that it contravenes the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The football obsession and the brain drain that we all have at this point in a summer that is already in full climate change have made the scandalous reaction of the Spanish judicial leadership, and of the ultra-nationalist right, to the CJEU ruling on the amnesty pass unnoticed. The summary is as follows. Constitutional Court: will look at it upon returning from vacation. Supreme Court: maintains the arrest warrant for Puigdemont and the embezzlement charge, and keeps the ace up its sleeve of raising new preliminary questions, which would further delay the process by a few more months. The PP: in the words of Secretary General Miguel Tellado, the CJEU ruling does not enter "into the substance of the matter". The substance of the matter is to get rid of Pedro Sánchez and his government, so evil that, according to the PP, it doesn't even support the national team.On the part of the socialists and the partners in Sánchez's investiture, and on the part of those directly affected – the independence leaders now amnestied by the European court – caution, prudence, calculation, and tense calm have predominated. Óscar Puente, the hooligan minister, broke the violin string, who overstepped by inviting Puigdemont to “show up in Spain”. This – since we mention football – is because Puente, like so many others, has for years applied to the certainly serious events that have occurred in the last ten years in the conflict between Catalonia and Spain the clumsy, emotional, and childish logic typical of football. They truly believe that “Puigdemont fled Spain inside the trunk of a car” and, from here, they are easy prey for the narrative they themselves have been building. An uninformed and misinforming, Manichean narrative, which quickly reduces reality to its caricature level. “Is there a favorable ruling from the ECJ? Then let him show up here”. If a minister's analytical capacity is this, the flood has arrived this far.However, what is truly alarming is the attitude of the Spanish courts towards their European counterparts. The fact that a state is a member of the EU means that European law and jurisprudence are incorporated into the legal corpus in force in that state and acquire a higher rank of relevance than "national" law and jurisprudence. The rulings of the European courts are not "foreign" rulings or intolerable interferences. European rulings cannot be postponed, neglected, evaded, or ignored. On the contrary, Spanish courts must respect them, apply them, and enforce them with the same zeal and diligence as if they were "own" rulings. However, this one from the CJEU on the amnesty is particularly difficult for them. And it is understandable, because it highlights the dirty game that Spanish justice and politics (in particular, the Supreme Court and the PP) have played and continue to play, naturally to defend the unity of Spain. The CJEU does not agree with them on anything and, without saying it, says what they are: politicians who act outside of democracy, and corrupt judges.

“This will all end up in international courts,” predicted the then-President of the Generalitat, Carles Puigdemont, in November 2017. For now, the amnesty – which at the time could not even be imagined – has already passed the validation of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and it is not the first setback that European justice has dealt to the Spanish Supreme Court. From exile, Puigdemont's defense has chained a series of favorable rulings across the continent. A series of victories that, for now, have not served him to return to Catalonia without the risk of being arrested.

There are strong, heavy, labyrinthine, relentless states. There are also failed ones. In the case of Spain, I leave the qualifying adjective to you, but the fact is that we would not be talking about either decisive or pragmatic. Perhaps the majority of our society is not either? That is a topic for another day.

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 endorsement of the amnesty law by the Court of Justice of the European Union will test Spanish institutions and could expose the politicization of justice at the highest levels, which has long been sending worrying signals with the government majority in its sights. The president of the court, Belgian judge Koens Lennaert, highlights the purpose of "reducing institutional and political tensions, as well as facilitating a scenario of reconciliation." Do those who must ratify the law's application share this idea? From the judicial world, there has been an immediate move to distance themselves. For now, various judicial spokespersons have wanted to make three principles very clear: that the CJEU can have whatever opinion it wants, but that regarding the amnesty, it is the Spanish judges who must decide; that to interpret the Constitution we already have the Constitutional Court and there is no need for it to be done from abroad, and that there can be no automatic application of the amnesty. That is to say, calm and patience.

After the European justice's approval of the amnesty, a couple of immediate questions remain, the first: who remains to be amnestied?Here we explain it: the CDRs (indicted in the National Court for terrorism) and those pending before the Court of Auditors, accused by the Prosecutor's Office and by Societat Civil Catalana, which is claiming five million from them, but then there is a small trickle of cases distributed in various parts of the country. And the other: when can Puigdemont return? Núria Orriols, our delegate in Madrid, reviews all possible scenarios, which include the fact that the Supreme Court has no deadline to rush its decision and could even ask Europe again if embezzlement is amnestible, even though the Constitutional Court had already said that the amnesty was constitutional. The only certainty is that the Constitutional Court will rule in the autumn precisely on whether embezzlement is amnestible. And this is where the political calendar comes in: in Madrid, it is rumored that it will be in the autumn when Pedro Sánchez can announce the call for elections. If Puigdemont arrives before or during the campaign, the consequences are diverse: it helps Junts, it campaigns for PP and VOX against the PSOE in Spain and it helps the PSC in Catalonia. Yesterday Aznar said that "the seditious aggression" could not go unpunished. And it is that in the amnesty two grievances converge according to PP, the patriotic grievance (Spain is not voted for) and that of power, and here is where the two public enemies number one are found: Puigdemont and Sánchez. They want them both in prison. The PSOE governs having lost, thanks to the amnesty agreed with Junts. Aznar, incidentally, recalled that the unity of Spain is basic for the European Union, as is that of Italy or Germany or any other country. Aznar and a good part of Spanish politics put unity first and then democracy, with the mental reservation that without unity there is no democracy. From this tangle between aggravated flag and the power they do not have, there is the reason for the refusal of the Spanish judicial leadership to apply a law that has been approved for more than two years, which is Constitutional and in accordance with Community legislation. Remember the 2006 Statute. We've been the same for 20 years. And the problem is that in these 20 years the country has changed a lot, the world has changed a lot, needs have multiplied and we don't have all the tools. And the parties in Catalonia are too divided to overcome the enormity of the challenge that the future of the country represents. A certain unity of action is a necessary condition.Good morning.

The Spanish legislature will end more or less as it began: debating the amnesty law. But while Pedro Sánchez has long since assumed the political costs, it seems the judiciary still has outstanding bills and it is not clear whether it will want to collect them or file them away. Indeed, the law of criminal oblivion, emphatically validated on Thursday by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), has faced the hostility of the political and media right from the start, but above all from the judicial right, wounded in its self-esteem (and in its patriotism) by what is seen, even before Parliament, the only body with direct democratic legitimacy, decided to annul the severe penalties imposed by a handful of modern Torquemadas on the instigators of the Procés. Undoubtedly, the law has experienced many political obstacles, such as the mines laid in the Senate by the PP majority, the request for dispensable consultative reports, or the intervention of the Venice Commission. But it has also had to overcome the raising of prejudicial questions before the Constitutional Court (TC) — at the request of the second chamber of the Supreme Court of Marchena and Llarena — and before the CJEU — in this case, by the National Court, which is trying the CDRs for terrorism (!), and by the Court of Auditors, which is settling the accounting responsibility for the 9-N of dozens of high-ranking officials —, under the pretext that there were doubts about the law's fit within the Constitution or European law.First, it was the Constitutional Court that reaffirmed the full constitutionality of the law in about twenty rulings derived from appeals from all the autonomous communities governed by the PP and even from the ineffable García-Page. And now it is the CJEU that has ruled in two judgments on the unequivocal adequacy of the amnesty to EU law, recognizing that it has served to reduce tension and that it has acted as a "tool for normalization", as the preamble of the norm mentioned. This fundamental argument reaffirms what the court's advocate general, Dean Spielmann, expressed at the time, who dismissed it as an "auto-amnesty" arising from a political trick. Furthermore, the Court of Luxembourg does not object to accounting responsibility demanded by the Court of Auditors being amnestied, because, as is logical, an ephemeral "disconnection" of Catalonia could not affect the financial interests of the EU, and declares that the law complies with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights by expressly excluding serious crimes and the violation of fundamental rights from its benefits. Game over.

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 amnesty law for those charged in the independence process came into force in June 2024. More than two years have passed and the blockade continues. How much longer will it take to reach all those involved?

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 Court of Justice of the European Union has ended up saying what, in reality, we already knew. Not because the answer was predictable or desired from a political perspective, but because any minimally rigorous reading of Union law made it very difficult to argue that the amnesty law violated the European principles that some invoked with a conviction that was more ideological than legal. The question is not, therefore, what Luxembourg has said, but why some Spanish courts decided to ask it what they already knew it would answer.When the Court of Auditors and the National Court raised their preliminary questions, they were not faced with a genuine interpretative doubt, because there was no legal uncertainty of sufficient magnitude to justify transferring the decision to the ECJ. There was, above all, a desire to gain time. To delay the effectiveness of a law approved by the democratic legislator and to keep alive a confrontation that had ceased to be legal for years and had essentially become political.This is, probably, one of the great institutional anomalies of the last decade. The government of Mariano Rajoy decided to subcontract to the courts the response to an essentially political issue. In any mature rule of law, judges guarantee the rules of the game, but they do not replace those who have the democratic legitimacy to resolve political conflicts.

Great news: the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has largely endorsed the amnesty law.It found it to be in accordance with EU law, because it considered that the amnesty is not contrary to the financial interests of the European Union, nor is it contrary to the directive on terrorism (the crime for which some CDRs had been prosecuted). It goes further, emphatically: the CJEU states that the amnesty does not harm equal treatment, in the sense that it was a law only intended to favor some, but rather it was approved "in a real context of political and social reconciliation" and therefore does not constitute a "self-amnesty". With this ruling, the Court of Auditors should file its cases, and the National Court, too. And the Supreme Court, of course. But at the moment I'm speaking to you, the arrest warrant for Carles Puigdemont or the disqualification of Oriol Junqueras is still in place. And it is quite likely that they will wait until autumn to lift them, which is when the Constitutional Court will issue a ruling on the Supreme Court's refusal to apply the amnesty. To put it this way, Carles Puigdemont is one step closer to returning to Catalonia, and now it seems it is only a matter of a few months.The CJEU ruling is great news, but that the amnesty is not fully applied is a disgrace that can only be explained by the "a por ellos!". It is important to remember where we come from: the TS prosecuted the political prisoners for rebellion, a crime that should have required armed violence, it condemned for sedition, which would also have required violence, and now it refuses to apply the amnesty for embezzlement, for which there has also been none. It is a deployment of creative, patriotic justice.The president Illa made a statement in Catalan, Spanish, and English :“I appear before all of you to express my satisfaction and that of the Government of Catalonia for the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. An explicit ruling, which endorses Organic Law 1/2024 on amnesty for the institutional, political, and social normalization of Catalonia. The highest instance of European justice has spoken clearly: the law complies with European law. Europe says 'yes' to amnesty, Catalonia says 'yes' to the future. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union is very good news for Catalonia, for Spain, and for democracy. There is no turning back. The amnesty law is part, with all its consequences, of our legal framework, and therefore, its application is mandatory.”

Tomorrow at 9 the Spain-France game will be played, and banal Spanish nationalism is infiltrating everywhere, including the mobile screens of Movistar customers, which, instead of saying “Movistar” says “with the selection”, regardless of whether the client completely ignores it of the World Cup or the selection bothers them. The performance that states and companies derive from their sports selections explains to what extent sport is also politics and identity is also business. A cruel paradox for so many Catalans who have at some point shouted "neither Spain, nor France, Catalan Countries", and it turns out that tomorrow, it will be one or the other. About M. Rajoy and his comment that France plays without French saying that: first, following their reasoning, Spain plays without Spaniards, and second, that Republican France has felt very offended, but it would be good for them to consider whether the indignation they feel about the racist comment is consistent with the absence of racism in everyday life. Contrary to what this article says, it is not that people like Rajoy bring the World Cup into the realm of identity, but rather that the entire World Cup is a competition of identities (one only needs to look at the anthems, the flags, and the heads of state in the stands). Another matter is what is understood by national identity in each country. But this week there is another important appointment, which is on Thursday, the day on which the Court of Justice of the European Union must rule on the amnesty, specifically on whether the crime of embezzlement is amnestible or not. It is another episode in this judicial quarrel that the Spanish judiciary's refusal to apply the amnesty law as approved by the legislative power more than two years ago, in May 2024, has become. Remember that, to prevent its application, the Supreme Court ruled that, since the referendum was paid for with public money, the leaders of the Process personally enriched themselves because they saved themselves from putting money from their own pockets, like someone who pays for their daughter's wedding with public money (the example is from the Supreme Court). Well, on Thursday the CJEU will rule, but even if the ruling says that the amnesty is in accordance with European law, it will not be automatically applied, but rather then, the Constitutional Court must decide whether the Supreme Court's interpretation is correct or not, presumably it will say no, but this ruling will not arrive until the autumn, practically when Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Lluís Puig will have been in exile for 9 years.  

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.

]]>

The final stretch of the extraordinary regularization process for migrants promoted by the Spanish government is coming to an end with an open judicial front. Given the doubts raised by the Supreme Court about the measure's compatibility with European law, experts consulted by ARA agree that it is unlikely to have immediate effects on the applications submitted. While the legal world points to possible shortcomings in the processing, organizations and groups that have helped migrants with paperwork – often fighting against misinformation and lack of resources and suffering from administrative collapse– are now focusing all their efforts on ensuring that applicants can complete the procedures before the deadline expires this Tuesday.

]]>

The Supreme Court expresses doubts about the legality of the extraordinary regularization of migrants that the Spanish government has promoted and which ends this Tuesday. In two rulings to which ARA has had access, the high court questions the fit of the decree approved by Pedro Sánchez's executive within European law and gives five days to the parties involved against the process – in this case the government of Aragon and that of the Valencian Community, both from the PP – to pronounce on the suitability of raising a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), based in Luxembourg.

]]>