EU court clears path for Spain’s Catalan amnesty

(CN) — Spain’s plan to hit reset on the Catalan independence crisis largely passed its toughest legal test yet Thursday, as the European Union’s top court ruled that EU law does not stand in the way of the country’s amnesty.

Seeking guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union, two Spanish courts asked whether the 2024 law could wipe out terrorism-related prosecutions and financial liability claims tied to the independence movement without breaching EU law. One case involved 12 people facing terrorism charges. The other sought millions of euros from 35 former Catalan officials accused of using public money to organize the 2017 independence referendum and promote secession abroad.

The judges rejected nearly every challenge.

Amnesties remain largely a matter for national governments, the court said, provided they comply with EU law.

“The adoption of an amnesty law comes in principle under the prerogative of each member state, in particular in the pursuit of an objective of national reconciliation or political compromise,” the court said. That allows Spain to end proceedings linked to the independence movement, except where claimed terrorism intentionally caused serious human rights violations. National courts must still decide whether individual defendants fall within that exception.

The judges also found the law sufficiently precise, limiting it to conduct connected to the Catalan independence movement between November 2011 and November 2023 while leaving national courts to determine which cases qualify.

They also dismissed arguments that a hypothetical independent Catalonia could indirectly harm the EU budget by reducing Spain’s future contributions. The amnesty may therefore extend to cases involving only Spanish public funds, so long as EU money is not at issue.

The only significant limit concerned procedure. Spain cannot require courts to terminate proceedings or lift interim measures while a request for guidance is still pending before the EU court because doing so would undermine the preliminary ruling process.

Matteo Bonelli, an associate professor of EU law at Maastricht University, said the judges largely followed last year’s opinion from the court’s advocate general, although sometimes through different reasoning.

“The outcome of both rulings is perfectly clear: The Spanish amnesty law does not conflict with EU law,” Bonelli said. He said the court rejected an expansive reading of the EU’s financial interests, found no systemic threat to Spain’s judiciary and accepted the law’s stated goal of easing political and institutional tensions, echoing Spain’s Constitutional Court.

Catalonia’s independence crisis erupted in 2017 after years of growing demands for statehood in one of Spain’s wealthiest regions, where many argued Catalonia contributed more to the national economy than it received and deserved greater self-rule. Regional leaders pressed ahead with an independence referendum despite Spain’s Constitutional Court declaring it illegal, triggering criminal prosecutions, financial liability claims and years of litigation. Some investigations later classified parts of the unrest as terrorism-related offences.

Spain passed the amnesty in June 2024 after Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez secured the backing of Catalan separatist parties needed to remain in office following an inconclusive general election. His government said the law was intended to reduce political and institutional tensions surrounding the independence movement, while opponents argued it effectively traded legal accountability for parliamentary support.

German Manuel Teruel Lozano, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Murcia, said the court’s restraint was as striking as the result. In his view, the judges deliberately avoided judging the legitimacy of the amnesty, even though they have taken a more aggressive approach in other recent cases involving EU values. By treating the measure largely as a matter of national sovereignty, he said, the court left unanswered concerns that future governments could trade legal accountability for political support.

Not everyone saw that restraint as surprising.

Alberto López Basaguren, a professor of constitutional law at the University of the Basque Country, said he had expected the outcome because the supposed conflicts with EU law were weak from the outset, despite his own longstanding opposition to the amnesty under Spain’s Constitution. He pointed to the absence of any indication that EU funds were involved and said the terrorism challenge was also unlikely to succeed because the law already excludes serious human rights violations.

“What may once have been seen as a doubt regarding a breach of EU law now becomes a dismissal of those very doubts,” he said, suggesting the referrals may ultimately have delayed, rather than changed, the law’s implementation.

The rulings may clear away many of the EU law obstacles, but they do not resolve every high-profile case.

Josep Maria Tirapu Sanuy, a researcher in law at the University of Cambridge, said the rulings are likely to clear the way for several terrorism related and accounting proceedings that had been stalled while Spain’s courts waited for guidance from Luxembourg.

But he noted they leave untouched the most closely watched dispute involving former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont, whose case still turns on Spain’s domestic interpretation of whether he personally benefited from spending linked to the referendum. Until Spain’s Constitutional Court rules on that issue, Tirapu said, Puigdemont remains unable to return to Spain.

Societat Civil Catalana, which initiated the financial proceedings, said the judgment leaves its central objections unchanged. Its president, Álex Ramos Torre, said the group respects the ruling but continues to view the legislation as a self-amnesty that erases misuse of Catalan public money and violates equality before the law.

“The EU court does not deny that there was misuse of funds in the amnesty,” Ramos said. “What it says is that it does not appear to have affected the EU’s financial interests.” He added that the Court of Auditors must still verify the source of the money and decide whether domestic funds were improperly used.

Lawyers for the applicants in both cases, along with the victims’ group that brought the terrorism challenge, did not respond to requests for comment.

The rulings cannot be appealed because the EU court was answering questions referred by Spanish judges rather than deciding the underlying disputes. The cases now return to the National High Court and the Court of Auditors. One must determine whether the terrorism defendants intentionally caused serious human rights violations; the other must verify whether EU funds were involved. Once those questions are answered, Spain’s judges, not the EU’s, will decide who actually receives the amnesty.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.