The Court of Justice of the European Union is due to publish its first two rulings on Spain's amnesty law on Wednesday 16 July, but those decisions will not by themselves cancel the arrest warrant against former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont. For Catalonia residents and anyone following the legal effect of the amnesty, the immediate consequence is simple: Puigdemont still cannot return to Spain without the risk of arrest under the current order.

According to the Grand Chamber timetable reported by Demócrata, the Luxembourg court will answer two preliminary references from Spanish courts about Organic Law 1/2024, the amnesty law approved on 10 June 2024. One case concerns accounting liability proceedings before the Tribunal de Cuentas, Spain's Court of Auditors. The other concerns the Audiencia Nacional, Spain's National High Court, in the terrorism case involving members of the Committees for the Defence of the Republic, or CDR.

The European high court has received four preliminary questions on this law, which it must resolve through binding decisions.

What the court is deciding is the law's compatibility with EU law in those referred cases. It is not directly deciding whether Puigdemont's personal arrest order should be lifted. That question remains with Spain's courts, above all the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, which have been dealing with the application of the amnesty to his case.

What the EU court will rule on 16 July

Demócrata reported that the Court of Justice will issue judgments in the two cases for which Advocate General Dean Spielmann delivered opinions in November. In those opinions, he rejected the argument that the amnesty was a "self-amnesty" and also rejected claims that it conflicted with EU rules on combating terrorism or protecting the European Union's financial interests, although he said there could be limited breaches of EU law in specific parts of the legislation.

In the Court of Auditors case, Spielmann's opinion examined whether Organic Law 1/2024 was compatible with Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which concerns protection of the EU's financial interests, and with Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The opinion also examined the law's two-month maximum period for implementing the amnesty and the rule requiring the lifting of interim measures even when a preliminary reference has been filed.

In the Audiencia Nacional case, the Advocate General considered whether applying the amnesty in criminal proceedings connected to alleged terrorism offences would breach Directive (EU) 2017/541. That opinion states that the directive is silent on amnesties and discusses the exclusion clause for serious breaches of human rights.

  • The rulings are due on Wednesday 16 July.
  • They concern two preliminary references already examined by the Advocate General in November.
  • The cases come from the Tribunal de Cuentas and the Audiencia Nacional.
  • The legal questions include EU financial interests, terrorism rules and procedural safeguards.

Why Puigdemont's arrest order still stands

The reason the 16 July rulings do not automatically free Puigdemont from the arrest order is that his warrant remains tied to decisions still being taken in Spain. The Constitutional Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of the law in Judgment 137/2025 of 26 June 2025, published in the Official State Gazette, known as the BOE, but that judgment did not itself extinguish every pending measure in every individual case.

That ruling held that there is no constitutional ban on granting amnesties, while also declaring parts of the law partially unconstitutional, specifically in the delimitation of its objective and temporal scope. The official Constitutional Court text, published through the court's decision system, confirms the judgment date and its mixed outcome.

The Constitutional Court judgment states that there is an "inexistence of a constitutional prohibition on granting amnesties", while also finding partial unconstitutionality in parts of the law's scope.

That matters because Puigdemont's lawyers have argued that favourable European findings should help remove the arrest order, but the operative decision on the warrant remains with the Spanish courts handling his case. Reports cited in the verified source list show that Spain's top courts have so far maintained the warrant while considering how the amnesty applies.

For residents in Catalonia, the practical point is that the July ruling may clarify how judges must interpret parts of the amnesty law, but it does not mean Puigdemont can lawfully return the same day. Any change to his legal position would require a specific Spanish court decision applying those rulings to his case.

The legal picture remains incomplete even after the 26 June Constitutional Court judgment and even with the 16 July EU rulings approaching. Demócrata reported that the Court of Justice has received four preliminary references in total on the amnesty law, not just the two due to be decided now.

Spielmann's November opinion also pointed to a narrower problem in the law's design. ARA reported that he considered the law contrary to EU law insofar as it restricted the Court of Auditors to a maximum of two months to analyse an amnesty request where EU interests were involved. At the same time, he endorsed the law's stated aim of political and social reconciliation and concluded that it did not amount to a self-amnesty.

That leaves several layers of litigation still alive:

  • the Court of Justice rulings due on 16 July in two referred cases;
  • other pending preliminary questions on the amnesty law's compatibility with EU law;
  • the application of the law by Spanish courts to individual defendants, including Puigdemont;
  • the continued effect of existing arrest orders unless and until a Spanish court lifts them.

The next fixed date is Wednesday 16 July, when the Court of Justice of the European Union is due to publish its first judgments on Organic Law 1/2024.

Primary sources: boe.es. Reported by By Agencias, dobbeka, Gerard Fageda, eucrim.eu, Núria Orriols, Martí Odriozola i Marcé, euronews.com, Ot Serra, catalannews.com, Roger Palós, hj.tribunalconstitucional.es, russpain.com.