The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected applying the amnesty law to former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont for the crime of embezzlement linked to the independence process, despite the recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that endorsed the measure of grace.
In an order signed by investigating judge Pablo Llarena—to which ‘Europa Press’ has had access—the high court dismisses Puigdemont's request and keeps the national arrest warrant against him in force, understanding that there is a “purpose of obtaining a personal patrimonial benefit” that expressly excludes embezzlement from the scope of the amnesty.
The judge recalls that already in July 2024, when the ‘procés’ amnesty came into force, he denied its application to embezzlement for two reasons: first, the existence of a personal patrimonial benefit; and second, the consideration that the facts affected the financial interests of the European Union. Now, after the CJEU ruling known in July 2026, Llarena acknowledges that the second argument can no longer be sustained, because the European court has ruled out that the secession of a part of the national territory implies, by itself, an affectation to the financial interests of the EU.
However, the magistrate keeps the first ground intact: the interpretation that those accused in the ‘procés’ obtained a personal patrimonial benefit by financing the 1-O referendum with public funds, which allowed them to save an expense they should have assumed with their own resources. According to the order, this “patrimonial saving” fits into the exclusion from amnesty provided for embezzlement when there is a purpose of obtaining a personal patrimonial advantage, even if there is no enrichment.
The amnesty law and the Supreme Court's restrictive interpretation
Organic Law 1/2024 on amnesty for the ‘procés’ came into force in May 2024 and since its approval generated an intense legal debate about its scope, especially regarding embezzlement crimes. In April 2025, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court already established a restrictive reading: amnesty does not cover embezzlement when the public official disposes of funds as if they were their own and obtains a patrimonial advantage, active (enrichment) or passive (expense saving), nor when there is an affectation to the financial interests of the EU.
That doctrine was applied by Llarena in July 2024 to exclude Puigdemont and other former ministers from the amnesty, arguing that the use of public money for the illegal referendum constituted a personal patrimonial benefit and a potential impact on European funds. Since then, several defenses have appealed that interpretation before the Constitutional Court, which has not yet ruled definitively on the merits of the matter.
The CJEU ruling: what it said and what it did not say about the amnesty
On July 16, 2026, the CJEU issued a preliminary ruling that endorsed the compatibility of the Spanish amnesty law with EU law, provided that it is not applied to conduct affecting European financial interests. The Luxembourg-based court specified that the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU does not prevent amnesty when the acts subject to the procedure refer to funds that do not come from the community budget or are not intended for it.
That pronouncement forced the Court of Auditors and now the Supreme Court to review the second argument for exclusion from the amnesty: the alleged impact on the financial interests of the EU derived from secession. However, the CJEU did not rule on the Spanish interpretation of “personal patrimonial benefit,” which remains an internal criterion of the amnesty law and is what Llarena is now using to maintain the veto on Puigdemont.
