{"id":460196,"date":"2026-07-16T12:55:40","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T10:55:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/2026\/07\/16\/catalogna-la-corte-ue-promuove-la-legge-di-amnistia-voluta-da-sanchez-non-contrasta-con-il-diritto\/"},"modified":"2026-07-16T15:09:22","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T13:09:22","slug":"catalonia-eu-court-backs-sanchezs-amnesty-law-it-does-not-conflict-with-eu-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/catalonia-eu-court-backs-sanchezs-amnesty-law-it-does-not-conflict-with-eu-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Catalonia, EU Court backs S\u00e1nchez\u2019s amnesty law: \u2018It does not conflict with EU law\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brussels \u2013 The amnesty law sought by the Spanish government<\/a> to close the chapter on the Catalan independence trial has come under the scrutiny of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In the judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber,<\/a> the judges in Luxembourg ruled that EU law does not preclude<\/strong> the legislation approved by Madrid in June 2024, rejecting the concerns raised by the Court of Auditors and the Spanish High Court. According to the EU Court of Justice, the law pursues a legitimate objective: \u201cto reduce institutional and political tensions and to facilitate a scenario for
\nreconciliation,\u201d<\/strong> as stated in the official press release issued alongside the rulings. The same conclusion reached today (16 July) had already been reached in November by the Advocate General, Dean Spielmann, who in his non-binding opinion<\/a> had defended the controversial amnesty<\/strong> for Catalan separatists. <\/p>\n

The Luxembourg judges issued a preliminary ruling on the question raised by Spain\u2019s Court of Audit regarding whether granting amnesty for accounting liability linked to spending on the independence process could jeopardise EU finances. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled out the possibility on the grounds that \u201cthe financial interests of the Union cannot be established on the sole basis of the reduction in gross national income which could potentially be the result of the secession of part of a national territory.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Secondly, the legislation introduced by Madrid concerns acts related to the Catalan independence process<\/a> and the 1 October 2017 referendum, and provides for exemption from criminal, administrative, and financial liability for acts falling within its scope. In the view of the European courts, as this is an area falling within the competence of the Member States, the Union\u2019s scrutiny is limited to assessing systemic issues that could undermine the functioning of the national justice system.<\/strong> And, in the case of Spain, no such issues have emerged. <\/p>\n

Thirdly, the Court ruled that the amnesty does not breach the European Directive on combating terrorism because it “merely provides, a posteriori, for the absence of prosecution for certain offences committed in the
\nsole specific context of the movement for Catalan independence,” <\/strong>while excluding any amnesty “for acts which intentionally
\ncaused serious breaches of human rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, a key caveat is clearly flagged. The Court makes it clear that Spanish legislation cannot render the preliminary ruling procedure <\/strong> ineffective, that is to say, the mechanism that enables national courts to seek an interpretation of European law from their counterparts in Luxembourg. If the two-month time limit laid down by Spanish law for concluding proceedings were also to apply to cases where a question is already pending before the Court of Justice, thereby preventing the national court from awaiting the European ruling, that provision would have to be set aside. As the press release highlights, the amnesty law “must not deprive the preliminary ruling procedure of its
\neffectiveness.\u201d<\/strong> In this context, however, the Court confirmed the two-month time limit granted by the amnesty law<\/strong> to Spanish judges to decide whether to apply it in their respective cases \u2013 provided that proceedings are stayed should preliminary questions be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Furthermore, according to the Court, the two-month period does not undermine the principle of effective judicial protection<\/strong>, because it is<\/strong> \u201climited<\/strong>\u201d to the application of the amnesty law<\/strong> and, therefore, cannot give rise to \u201cproblems of a systemic nature capable of undermining the proper
\nfunctioning of the national judicial system.”<\/p>\n

The rulings mark a decisive turning point in one of the most controversial political and judicial affairs in recent years in Spain. After the Spanish Constitutional Court had already ruled that the law was essentially in line with the Constitution, the European Union has now also given the green light, confirming that the decision to grant amnesty, within the limits set by the Court of Justice of the European Union, is compatible with EU law. This result has brought a sigh of relief to the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro S\u00e1nchez<\/strong>. For the Socialist leader, the controversial amnesty for Catalan separatists, adopted by Madrid last year<\/a>, had been the lifeline that kept him afloat and enabled him to remain at the helm of the government for a third consecutive term<\/strong>. But an even greater sigh of relief is being breathed by the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont<\/strong>, because today\u2019s decision by the EU Court paves the way for the Spanish Constitutional Court \u2013 whose ruling will be crucial to Puigdemont\u2019s possible return to Spain \u2013 to determine whether the Supreme Court should grant him amnesty for the offence of embezzlement of public funds. In this context, it should be noted that Puigdemont had challenged before the Constitutional Court the Supreme Court\u2019s decision not to apply the amnesty law to him, firstly because he believed that granting amnesty for the offence of embezzlement would jeopardise European finances \u2013 a claim which the Court of Justice of the European Union has today rejected \u2013 and secondly because he argued that the former president had enriched himself by not personally financing the referendum on 1 October.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The same conclusion reached today (16 July) had already been reached in November by Advocate General Dean Spielmann, who, in his non-binding opinion, had defended the controversial measure against the Catalan separatists<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7896,"featured_media":453558,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","podmotor_file_id":"","podmotor_episode_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"1","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"default-sidebar","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"top","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"1","show_post_author_image":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"1","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"1","show_prev_next_post":"1","show_popup_post":"1","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"1","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0","subtitle":""},"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[25712],"tags":[27848,32594,27709,34877,26870],"class_list":["post-460196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-news","tag-catalogna-en","tag-corte-di-giustizia-dellunione-europea","tag-pedro-sanchez-en","tag-separatisti","tag-spain-en"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7896"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=460196"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460196\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":460197,"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/460196\/revisions\/460197"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/453558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=460196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=460196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.eunews.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=460196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}