Carles Puigdemont’s request to suspend the arrest warrant still in force against him in Spain constitutes a tactical move with very unlikely immediate effects.
The leader of Junts builds on the recent report of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), in favor of the feasibility of amnesty in the case of processes. Puigdemont’s defense also abounds with arguments presented by him when last July he presented a protection appeal to the Constitutional Court for violation of fundamental rights, after the Supreme Court had decided that the amnesty was not applicable to embezzlement. What he then requested was a completely precautionary measure so that the guarantee body could urgently revoke said arrest warrant, without hearing the other parties represented in the proceedings. The court rejected this request, but opened a separate piece to study the origin of the request as a precautionary measure, not urgent and awaiting study until they receive the accusations of the other participants in the case. These charges are pending. The Prosecutor’s Office has already opposed granting Puigdemont the requested precautionary measure.
At the same time, the Constitutional Court is already examining the merits of the amparo appeal, with the aim of resolving it in the first quarter of next year. It is in that ruling that the Court will decide whether the Supreme Court violated the fundamental rights of Puigdemont and other leaders of the processes when he denied them the application of amnesty to the crime of embezzlement, believing that they had enriched themselves by carrying out the independence projects, since they had promoted them with public funds and not with their own money or assets. What is predictable, given this situation, remains that the Constitutional Court wants to do things its own way, and not rush decisions.
It is in this context that the recent report of the Advocate General of the CJEU has acquired particular relevance. The opinion supported the Spanish State’s argument that the amnesty does not violate the principles of European law nor the financial interests of the EU. Puigdemont’s lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, points out that according to the report, amnesty belongs “to the exclusive competence of the Member States” and that “the appropriateness, scope and content of an amnesty are beyond the control of Union law”. This was, in fact, the thesis of the Spanish Constitutional Court. But the ruling is not binding, and we must wait for the CJEU’s ruling – which will arrive within a few weeks – to see whether it will ratify these criteria. What could be defined as a very active waiting period now begins, in which this week there will be further rulings in support of the amnesty. The Constitutional Court will resolve the appeals of various communities governed by the PP and the appeals of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, applying its doctrine on the full legality of the law which contemplates the remission of crimes related to processes.
