The Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court in Spain has made a significant decision with potentially far-reaching consequences for former Generalitat President Carles Puigdemont and former minister Antoni Comin. The chamber confirmed the non-amnesty for the crime of embezzlement of public funds, for which both are accused in the ongoing case. This ruling paves the way for Puigdemont and Comin to now appeal to the Constitutional Court.
The Appellate Chamber issued a clear resolution rejecting the appeals for annulment filed by Puigdemont and Comin. These appeals aimed to overturn an earlier decision by the same chamber on April 9, which had already confirmed the non-application of the amnesty law to the charge of embezzlement. The Supreme Court’s decision remains firm, underscoring its stance that the amnesty does not apply in this specific instance.
Puigdemont had accused the Supreme Court of showing “virulent resistance” to the application of the amnesty law. He sought to reverse the decision to refer the matter to the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC). However, his lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, acknowledged in his brief that the law required “this empty procedural step,” “all the more so when it is obvious that we are condemned to continue the proceedings at the Constitutional headquarters.” This statement hinted at the scenario that has now unfolded.
Next Stop: The Constitutional Court
For Puigdemont and Comin, the path to the Constitutional Court is now clear. They follow in the footsteps of former Catalan Vice President Oriol Junqueras and former ministers Raúl Romeva, Dolors Bassa, and Jordi Turull, whose decisions are expected no earlier than autumn. The former president can now appeal to the Court of Guarantees once the Supreme Court has rejected the arguments made in his appeal for annulment and declared that “the way the debate on competence is initiated constitutes an obvious abuse of law.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court accuses Puigdemont of concealing all the instances in which investigating judge Pablo Llarena and the chamber itself ruled on jurisdiction, stating that “there have been many occasions when the defense has raised this complaint, and just as many times it has been rejected.” It was also clarified that the appeal for annulment cannot be used to “repeat arguments that coincide with those already used in the appeal.” These explanations underscore the court’s determination to uphold its previous decisions and not delay the process with repeated, already addressed arguments.
