Supreme Court Denies Amnesty for Catalan Leaders
In a significant legal and political decision, Spain's Supreme Court has ruled against granting amnesty for the crime of embezzlement of public funds in relation to the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. This decision affects several key political figures, including Oriol Junqueras, former vice president of the Generalitat of Catalonia, and Carles Puigdemont, the former regional president who has been in exile in Belgium since the failed secession attempt.
The court's ruling maintains the national arrest warrant against Puigdemont and two of his former advisors, Toni Comín and Lluís Puig. Additionally, the court upheld the disqualification orders against Junqueras and former councilors Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull, and Dolors Bassa, barring them from holding public office until 2030 and 2031. The Supreme Court also agreed to submit a question of unconstitutionality regarding the crime of disobedience for which these leaders were convicted.
Judge Ana Ferrer dissented, advocating for the inclusion of the crime of embezzlement in the amnesty and supporting a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, the majority opinion held that embezzlement, characterized by a 'profit motive,' cannot be amnestied. The court argued that the political leaders used public funds for personal and political purposes, which constitutes a crime regardless of the altruistic nature of the expenditures.
The ruling has significant implications for the Spanish government led by Pedro Sánchez (PSOE), which had promoted the amnesty law following the general elections of July 23, 2023. The court criticized the rapid legislative process, highlighting the difficulties in interpreting the hastily passed law. The Criminal Chamber emphasized the need for precise legal coherence to ensure predictability and legal certainty.
The Supreme Court's decision contrasts with a recent ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC), which granted amnesty for embezzlement to Miquel Buch, former Minister of the Interior of the Generalitat. The TSJC concluded that the embezzled funds were used for the independence movement and not for personal enrichment, thus falling under the amnesty law. However, the Supreme Court introduced a different analysis, stating that the political leaders should have used their own funds if they wanted to support the independence project.
The court also highlighted the potential impact on the financial interests of the European Union, suggesting that the territorial integrity of Europe was at risk during the independence attempt. The ruling underscores the court's stance that the actions of the Catalan leaders had serious financial and political repercussions, both domestically and internationally.
- The Supreme Court's ruling represents a setback for the Spanish government and its investiture partners, who had hoped the amnesty law would facilitate political reconciliation. The decision also maintains a legal and political pressure on the exiled leaders and those awaiting trial.
- Instructor Llarena, in his resolution, emphasized that the political leaders used public funds for initiatives unrelated to their governmental responsibilities, thereby committing a crime. The court's order dated July 1, explicitly states that the leaders opted to use public funds instead of their own money to support the independence project.
- The court's decision to maintain the arrest warrants for Puigdemont, Comín, and Puig solely for embezzlement, while annulling the warrant against Marta Rovira for disobedience, further complicates the legal landscape for the Catalan independence leaders.
- The ruling also includes several criticisms of the Spanish legislative process, pointing out the 'condescending leniency' of the Spanish legislator towards embezzlers and contrasting it with the European Union's stringent measures against embezzlement of public funds.
