Supreme Court confirms no amnesty for Puigdemont over misuse of public funds

The Spanish Supreme Court has confirmed that it will not grant an amnesty to former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont for the crime of misusing public funds.

The politician is currently residing in Belgium after leaving Spain during the height of the independence push following the 2017 self-determination referendum. He is facing charges of disobedience and misuse of public funds.

Along former president Carles Puigdemont, the Supreme Court followed judge Pablo Llarena’s previous decision on the matter and also rejected the possibility of granting an amnesty to former minister Toni Comín for the crimes of embezzlement.

The tribunal also refers to former Catalan minister Lluís Puig, in his decision. The court also rejected his appeal against not being granted an amnesty for the charges of embezzlement. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court had forgotten to include Puig's outcome in the first announcement.

The ruling

The Spanish Supreme Court argued that Llarena’s ruling on the former Catalan president aligns with the intent of the legislators of the Amnesty Law.

Lawmakers introduced an amendment to the law that excluded embezzlement from the law’s application when it involved the “intent for personal financial gain.” This means that the court must interpret the exception.  

According to the Supreme Court, the wording of the Amnesty law is not as clear as Puigdemont’s appeal suggested because it doesn’t say that personal financial gain can only be understood as a direct and tangible increase in wealth.

Instead, the court argued that both an increase in assets and the prevention of a decrease in liabilities should be considered.

“A person benefits financially when their wealth grows, but also when their liabilities are covered by public funds illegally,” stated the court.

It also believes that the Catalan pro-independence politicians benefitted financially by “personally advancing an illegal political project and charging the regional government, without serving any public interest.”

The high court has also ruled that it is not “appropriate” to refer the case to the Spanish Constitutional Court.

Political reactions to ruling

Carles Puigdemont criticized the Supreme Court’s decision on X (formerly known as Twitter) for “rejecting the application of the Amnesty Law”, but added that it was “no surprise”. 

“The decision confirms the attitude of defiance against the legislative power and the tantrum thrown over a law they disagree with, which leads them to twist the interpretation of the alleged crime of embezzlement,” he wrote. 

The General Secretary of Junts, Jordi Turull, also criticized the decision, calling it a “fabricated persecution” while stressing that it would “not stop us in our active commitment to Catalan independence.” 

The Catalan president, Salvador Illa, told media that he “respects” the decision of the Spanish Supreme Court, but added that “the legislative power should also be respected,” expressing hope that the case “will be resolved quickly and efficiently.” 

Illa also stressed that he would like for the amnesty to already be “applied and recognized” for all those affected “so they can return to Catalonia.” 

How it started

When the Amnesty Law came into force in June 2024, the Supreme Court judge, Pablo Llarena, refused to apply the amnesty to the Puigdemont case, believing that the charges of misuse of public funds were not covered.

At the time, Llarena argued that those under investigation "decided to pay those costs using taxpayer money," considering the 2017 referendum was not part of the government's responsibilities.

In September 2024, Puigdemont's lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, filed a legal complaint against Llarena to the General Council of the Judiciary, Spain's judicial authority, for the "inattention and unjustified and repeated delay" in the processing of appeals linked to the amnesty law.

In the letter of complaint, the lawyer argued that the magistrate has "repeatedly breached" the legal term provided for in the Criminal Procedure Law for the resolution of appeals for reform. Boye stated that the writings should have been resolved during the first fortnight of July.

Boye recalled that on July 1, the judge declared that misuse of funds was "inapplicable" for the amnesty and that on July 8 and 9, the defense filed several appeals.