Illa calls for a "diligent and comprehensive" application of the amnesty after the TJUE's endorsement: "There's no turning back"

Salvador Illa reacted this Thursday to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the amnesty law, with an institutional statement from the Gothic Gallery of the Palau de la Generalitat. The Catalan president described the pronouncement as "very good news" for both Catalonia and Spain, and demanded that the courts apply the norm "diligently, integrally, and without further delays."

In an eight-minute speech, Illa was emphatic about the scope of the ruling. In his opinion, after Luxembourg's decision, "there is no turning back." The president insisted that "it is time to look forward," implying that he considers the judicial debate on the validity of the amnesty closed.

The president of the Generalitat closed his speech by reaffirming his commitment to govern "for all, for the good of all and for the future of all," before concluding with a message addressed to both the Catalan and European spheres. "Europe has spoken. Catalonia moves forward," he concluded.

Clash of reactions after the European pronouncement

The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union provoked an immediate response from the main political parties. From ERC, its president, Oriol Junqueras, maintained that the resolution clears any argument to continue delaying the application of the law and affirmed that, after Luxembourg's pronouncement, "there are no more excuses" to prevent its execution.

In the Government, the Minister of the Presidency and Justice, Félix Bolaños, described the European court's decision as an endorsement of the Executive's actions and defended that the amnesty law "has been validated from three perspectives: from the point of view of human rights, the constitutional point of view, and from the point of view of European law."

On the other hand, the Partido Popular insisted that the CJEU's pronouncement does not put an end to the debate on the amnesty. The popular party stressed that the ruling "was limited to a very specific analysis" of Union Law and defended that the fundamental discussion remains political. "The debate was never only legal," they pointed out from the party, which maintains that the norm responds to an exchange of "power for impunity."