The Advocate General responsible for the review – focused on embezzlement and terrorism – of the Amnesty Law at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Dean SpellmanYesterday he spoke in favor of its compatibility with community law, with … Some comments and explanations. Although the lawyer’s opinion is not binding on the Luxembourg court, it is considered a guide that judges follow in most cases. The political derivative of Spelman’s conclusions is put into perspective carles Puigdemont, Junts leader and investment partner Pedro Sanchez, Who had been outside Spain since 2017 and was in possession of an arrest warrant on national territory signed by the Supreme Court.
According to the lawyers of the European Court of Justice, the rule, approved by Congress, which has already received the approval of the Constitutional Court and which is limited to the powers of Member States of the European Union (EU) like all amnesties, does not affect the “financial interests” of the EU, nor has a “direct link” been proven between the cost of the “operation” and the possible decrease in the income of the Community Club. Spielman also believes that amnesty for people accused of crimes linked to terrorist acts is consistent with the European Anti-Terrorism Directive, as the Spanish rule is only Partial and temporary “disruption”. Effects of orientation.
In this way, the opinion of the Prosecutor in charge of this case allows us to predict a peaceful decline of the government (considered not to be a “self-pardon”) following the ruling of the European Court of Justice, which It is expected to be known in 2026, If it agrees with the lawyer, it will confirm, in general, the legal propriety of the controversial law in the Spanish legal system.
However, it remains to be seen how this will affect Puigdemont, who has been a fugitive from Spanish justice for eight years, because, on the one hand, Court of Accounts, Which is investigating the case of embezzlement between 2011 and 2017, and we are talking about about five million euros, it can conduct an investigation to clarify whether there are possible links between what Spielmann himself admits is “illegal activity” – the cost of “operations” outside Spain – and EU funds.
On the other hand, the Supreme This explains the fact that embezzlement, as stipulated in the amnesty law, cannot go unpunished for Puigdemont and the rest of the participants in the illegal independence process. The theory supported by the Supreme Court is that whoever seizes the property of others – public assets – commits a crime even if the money obtained is used for a charitable or altruistic cause, at least to commit an illegal act such as dismantling the state by violating the Constitution. This is the case in the opinion of the second room and the teacher. Pablo Larena, It is outside the wording of the Spanish standard.
Therefore, even if Luxembourg adopts the opinion of the Prosecutor in the case known today, Thursday, the ruling cannot affect the situation that Puigdemont is experiencing. This is what specialized legal sources considered on the matter by the ABC after learning of Spielmann’s conclusions: “If the judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union follow the line set by the Prosecutor General, the Constitutional Court will be free to rule in favor of Puigdemont in his appeal. Then the Supreme Court can submit a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice, According to their interpretation of embezzlement. This means, initially, prolonging the former Catalan president’s stay abroad and delaying the final judicial decision of his case.
Moreover, in one of the few amendments he proposes to the amnesty law, Spielmann points out to the ECJ that he does not take into account the part of the rule that judges are obliged to raise. precautionary measures, Even when the court referred a preliminary question to Europe. The prosecutor says this would limit the “full effectiveness” of justice. This would fit the case of Puigdemont, against whom the Supreme Court is expected to retain the national arrest warrant.
Another warning from a lawyer at the European Court of Justice points to effective judicial protection, with regard to embezzlement, and that the Amnesty Law does not respect it by limiting the application of the rule to two months. Spielman concludes that this time “may be too short to determine whether a situation is covered by the amnesty or not, depending on the source of the funds (national or European) and their effective use to promote Catalan independence outside of Spain.” For the General Counsel, this period can “Breaking the demand for judicial independence.”
While awaiting the Luxembourg judges’ decision, lawyers in charge of preliminary ruling requests were cautious yesterday. Juan Chapabria He stressed that from what Spielmann stated, he concluded that in the accounting court “it was not possible to argue, and there was not enough time to evaluate whether there were EU funds involved.” and Jose Maria Foster Fabra, Expressing his “utmost respect” to Spelman, he noted that he would find it “surprising” for Europe to see “that people accused of terrorism can be granted amnesty.”
About The Author
