Judge Pablo LLaena “issued a ruling today (Monday) in which he declares the amnesty not applicable to the crime of embezzlement in the case against the former president of the Catalan Generalitat Carles Puigdemont,” the court said in its decision, made public on Monday, specifying that the arrest warrant against him therefore remained in force. This decision can be appealed within three days of notification to the parties, the document states.
Cancel arrest warrants for separatists
On May 30, the Spanish parliament passed an amnesty law for Catalan independence supporters, the price that Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez had to pay to be returned to power in November thanks to the support of the two Catalan independence parties, which demanded this measure in return. The law was promulgated on June 11.
The lawmakers’ goal was for the courts to quickly begin canceling arrest warrants for separatists who fled abroad, and for those cancellations to stand pending appeals against the law, a process that can take months or years. But with more than 400 people facing charges related to Catalonia’s 2017 independence bid or the events that preceded or followed it, the task is daunting for the courts, which must decide on a case-by-case basis.
The law was intended to allow the return of the pro-independence activists still in exile, first and foremost Carles Puigdemont, president of the Catalan regional government during the events of 2017, who has since been living in exile in Belgium to escape prosecution. Charged with embezzlement, disobedience and terrorism, Mr Puigdemont, who has been the subject of an arrest warrant since the events of 2017, hoped to be able to return to Spain quickly after the law was promulgated.
Personal benefit
Judge LLarena considered that the amnesty law did apply to the crime of disobedience, but that on the other hand, “the behaviors” of which Mr. Puigdemont and two other independentists were accused “fully correspond to the two exceptions provided for by the law” with regard to the crime of embezzlement.
Specifically, the magistrate concluded that there was a desire on the part of Mr Puigdemont to obtain personal benefit, as well as an impact on the financial interests of the European Union, which makes the amnesty inapplicable in his eyes. Consequently, the arrest warrant “is maintained only for the crime of embezzlement, not for that of disobedience”, according to the document. The crime of terrorism of which Mr Puigdemont is also accused in a separate case is not addressed in this judgment.