On Tuesday 10th November 2026, the National Court formally archived the terrorism case against twelve members of the Committees for the Defense of the Republic (CDR), applying amnesty under the Spanish law for institutional normalisation in Catalonia. The decision follows a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 16 July 2026, which confirmed that the amnesty does not contravene EU law when the acts in question do not involve serious intentional violations of human rights.
The defendants were part of Operation Judas, a 2019 investigation into a radical cell known as the Tactical Response Team (ERT), allegedly linked to the CDR. They were arrested on 23rd September 2019 on suspicion of planning violent actions around the anniversary of the 1-O referendum and the publication of the Procés ruling. Authorities found evidence of explosives and bomb-making materials, and the Prosecutor’s Office had initially sought prison sentences of up to 33 years for crimes including belonging to a terrorist organisation and manufacturing explosives.
The amnesty law, adopted by Spain in June 2024, covers acts connected to the Catalan independence process, including criminal, administrative and financial liabilities. The CJEU’s judgment in Cases C-523/24 and C-666/24 clarified that EU law permits such amnesty for terrorism-related charges provided there is no intentional serious breach of human rights. Based on this, the National Court concluded that the facts attributed to the accused fell within the scope of the law.
The absence of a death or injury cannot be a reason to dismiss any relevance of the facts.
Victim associations strongly oppose the decision. José Vargas, president of the Catalan Association of Victims of Terrorist Organizations (ACVOT), described the amnesty as a “humiliation” and a “mockery,” arguing that the group had fully prepared attacks, including manufacturing explosives, but were only stopped by police intervention. ACVOT and other civil society groups submitted allegations to the National Court last week, warning that the blanket application of amnesty undermines legal certainty and equality before the law.
Lawyer José María Fuster-Fabra argued in a brief that the amnesty law’s ambiguity allows for indiscriminate application and fails to conduct an individualised assessment of each defendant’s conduct. He stressed that “the fact that the conduct did not result in an outcome does not automatically eliminate the conduct or human rights violations.” The brief also noted that the State Attorney General’s Office had, in its 2020 report, explicitly classified the CDR and ERT as terrorist organisations.
European Endorsement Paves Way
The CJEU’s ruling, issued after a two-year legal review, rejected claims that the amnesty violated EU principles on judicial protection, non-discrimination or the protection of financial interests. The court affirmed that Member States retain discretion in granting amnesty, provided it does not conflict with the EU Directive on combating terrorism. The National Court’s resolution, a four-page interlocutory order, explicitly references the CJEU’s doctrine, stating that the facts under investigation “must be included” in the amnesty’s perimeter.
The Prosecutor’s Office had earlier supported dismissal of the case, aligning with the European court’s interpretation. The decision marks the end of a seven-year legal process that began with the arrests in 2019 and includes prior rulings by Spanish courts seeking clarification from Luxembourg.
Victims Feel Betrayed
ACVOT representatives say they were excluded from official recognition during proceedings, while CDR defence teams were funded by the Generalitat. Vargas recalled travelling to Luxembourg in 2025 to present victim statements, only to be outnumbered by independence groups. “It seems that being one of the bad guys is rewarded more than being one of the good guys,” he said.
The association draws parallels with ETA’s Hipercor bombing, noting that the CDR’s intent, though unfulfilled, was similarly destructive. They warn that normalising such acts risks eroding public trust in justice and equating political motivation with impunity.
Sources: El Confidencial, curia.europa.eu, Ara, El Constitucional.
