The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is responsible for reviewing amnesty laws focused on embezzlement and terrorism. dean spillmanYesterday, he said he supported compatibility with Community law, … Some comments and interpretations. The opinions of lawyers are not binding on Luxembourg courts, but in most cases they serve as guidelines for judges to follow. The political conclusions derived from Szpilman’s conclusions can be framed in the following circumstances. Carles Puigdemont Leader of the Junts, Pedro Sanchez He has been outside Spain since 2017 and has a domestic arrest warrant signed by the Supreme Court.
According to CJEU lawyers, the regulation, which has already been approved by the Constitutional Court, is, like other amnesties, limited to the competence of European Union (EU) member states, does not affect the EU’s “economic interests” and there is no proven “direct link” between the costs of the “procedure” and the potential loss of income for community clubs. Szpilman also believes that amnesty for people accused of crimes related to terrorism is compatible with the European Directive to Combat Terrorism, since the Spanish norm is only an “amnesty”. Partial and temporary “deactivation” Explain the effects of the directive.
Thus, the opinion of the Attorney General in charge of the case allows us to predict a peaceful landing of the government (which he does not consider a “self-amnesty”) after the judgment by the CJEU. It is expected that it will be revealed in 2026, Agreeing with the lawyer’s opinion would, broadly speaking, confirm that the controversial law is legally compatible with Spain’s legal system.
But it remains to be seen how that will affect Puigdemont, who has been on the run from a Spanish judge for eight years. Court of Accounts; The agency investigating the embezzlement case between 2011 and 2017, which is talking about around 5 million euros, is likely to carry out an investigation to find out whether there is a link between what Szpilman himself acknowledged as “illegal activity” – the cost of “procedures” outside Spain and the EU funds.
on the other hand, the best The embezzlement included in the amnesty law is interpreted to mean that Mr. Puigdemont and the rest of those involved in the illegal independence process will not go unpunished. This theory, supported by the High Court, is that anyone who seizes another person’s property, public property, is at least guilty of committing an illegal act, such as violating the Constitution and dismantling the country, even if the funds obtained are used for charity or altruistic purposes. And in this case, in the opinion of the second court and the leaders, Pablo Llarena It deviates from the standard Spanish wording.
Therefore, even if Luxembourg were to adopt the Attorney General’s opinion in this case, which was found out this Thursday, this judgment would not be able to affect the situation that Mr. Puigdemont is experiencing. This is what a legal source familiar with the matter discussed with the ABC after learning of Spielman’s conclusions: “If the CJEU judges follow the path set by the Attorney General, the Constitutional Court will have the discretion to rule in Puigdemont’s favor on his appeal. And the Supreme Court will may submit a preliminary ruling to the CJEU; According to their interpretation of embezzlement. First, it would mean that the former Catalan president’s stay abroad would be extended and the final judicial resolution of his case delayed.
Furthermore, Szpilman pointed out to the CJEU that one of the few proposed amendments to the Amnesty Act does not take into account the parts of the regulation that judges are obliged to lift. precautionary measures, Even if the court refers the preliminary inquiry to Europe. This would limit the “full effectiveness” of the judiciary, the attorney general said. And that will be the case in Mr. Puigdemont, where the Supreme Court will predictably uphold the state arrest warrant.
Another warning from the CJEU’s lawyers refers to effective judicial protection in relation to embezzlement, which Amnesty Law does not respect by limiting the application of the rule to two months. Szpilman concluded that this time “time may be too short to determine whether the situation qualifies for an amnesty, depending on the source of the funds (domestic or European) and their effective use in promoting Catalonia’s independence outside Spain.” For legal advisors, this period is “Defeating demands for judicial independence.”
Pending a decision by Luxembourg’s magistrates, lawyers in charge of the request for a preliminary judgment expressed a cautious stance yesterday. Juan Chapapuria He stressed that what Szpilman said led the auditor general to conclude that “it was not possible to discuss whether EU funds were involved and there was not enough time to assess it.” and Jose Maria Fuster Fabra, He expressed his “utmost respect” to Szpilman and said it would be “surprising” if Europe “thinks that people accused of terrorism can be granted amnesty”.
About The Author
