The EU Attorney General is called dean spillman. He is a Luxembourgish jurist with a long career and track record.
It not only contradicted the shocking opinion published by the European Commission last July on the amnesty law this Thursday. He is also the same jurist who, as president of the European Court of Human Rights, abolished so-called legal regulations. aum doctrine In 2013.
Their conclusions support key aspects of the standard Pedro Sanchez’s PSOE agreed with Carles Puigdemont’s Junto 2 years ago now. As was the case when he presided over the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in October 2013, benefiting more than 60 ETA prisoners.
The ruling follows a retrospective reinterpretation of prison benefits handed down by the Spanish Supreme Court in 2006. Ines Del Rio’s sentence was ‘unjustifiably extended’.
between 70 and 76 people were released from prison. As a direct result, in addition to the released ETA members, seven GRAPO terrorists and prisoners who committed other serious crimes were named.
CJEU headquarters in Luxembourg
Szpilman now defends the core parts of the pardon, but questions its essential aspects. would be in violation of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. In other words, he thinks the law will enter a state where: violation of the rule of law.
Sources consulted in Brussels said that in any case, the CJEU’s final ruling, expected in early 2026, “There is a possibility that we will fundamentally move away.” From Spielman’s report. And they had been warned by the court itself. “Affiliates” of the above-mentioned juristsafter many years of working as a judge “at the General Court of the European Union.”
Courts follow the Chief Justice’s conclusions in 80% of cases; “The pattern is different on issues related to the Catalan independence movement.”.
In fact, a year and a half ago, the general counsel at the time, a Polish Maciej Spunarruled that Puigdemont should have been recognized as an MP immediately the day after the 2019 election. The CJEU directly corrected its opinion..
the committee is against
The most surprising thing about the CJEU Advocate General’s opinion on amnesty law is that It is directly contrary to the opinion of the European Commission (This newspaper exclusively reported in June) In theory, it is an institution that exercises the authority of the guardian of the treaty.
For the Community Executive, amnesty is an attack on the rule of law, violates the principle of equality and legal certainty, and undermines the effectiveness of the EU counter-terrorism directive. The only difference with Spanish judges is that, according to Brussels, this rule Does not affect the economic interests of the union.
On the other hand, Luxembourg’s Spielmann different opinionscontains more shovelfuls of sand than lime. Agree with the Committee on certain procedural provisions of the Amnesty Act. incompatible with the right to effective judicial protection.
For example, it is considered illegal Obligation period is 2 months Therefore, judges will decide on pardons in each case. “Excessively short and binding terms can undermine the independence of the judiciary,” he warned.
It also does not comply with local laws. Don’t listen to public criticism before issuing a resolution on pardons. And forcing Spanish courts to apply pardons and pardons violates European law. Lifting precautionary measures without waiting for the final judgment of the CJEU.
However, after these warnings, Szpilman Supports the core of standards and come to the following conclusion Direct conflict with Brussels: It does not identify any attacks on the rule of law, any risks to the Anti-Terrorism Directive, or violations of fundamental European principles such as equality and legal certainty.
Is there self-pardon?
The main point of contention between the European Commission and the CJEU Attorney General revolves around whether the law has been agreed upon by the European Union governments. Pedro Sanchez and Carles Puigdemont In exchange for ordination, “Self-pardon”both parties agree to consider Direct violation of community law.
Community executives have stated very clearly: Amnesty. does not serve a general interest purpose However, it is based on a “political consensus” for the appointment. Sanchez.
Therefore, this is a “self-pardon” and is “against the rule of law” because it is based on “whoever it is.” Government guarantees impunity for partners in exchange for parliamentary support” argued Carlos Urraca, the commission’s lawyer, at a public hearing in Luxembourg in July.
By contrast, the Attorney General refutes these conclusions from Brussels almost word for word. “From my point of view, Nothing allows the classification of amnesty laws as self-amnesties. “In this case, it is due to several complex reasons,” he argues.
“First, the law in question is the result of normal parliamentary procedures processed within a pluralistic democratic system; it is the result of general parliamentary debate and democratic voting, rather than the result of unilateral action imposed by an authoritarian power,” the opinion states.
Szpilman further argues that “its application cannot escape judicial control” and that it “operates impersonally.” “This is therefore not intended to protect the political regime or its representatives from possible judicial action, but rather to deal with exceptional circumstances.” the stated goal of institutional normalization and reconciliation;”.
counter-terrorism directive
At a public hearing in July, community executives argued that the amnesty law: Undermining the effectiveness of the EU’s counter-terrorism directive. The Code allows for criminal forgetfulness, except in cases where terrorist crimes are involved.serious human rights violation”.
However, Brussels said the concept was “not well defined” and “significant uncertaintyFor the remaining terrorist crimes, the amnesty provisions “lack certainty, predictability, and precision.”
“The scope is very broad and there are many uncertainties, which on the one hand undermines legal certainty and, on the other hand, can lead to: An amnesty that is too broad and violates the beneficial effects of the Directive” argued the committee’s lawyer.
Once again, the CJEU’s Advocate General came to exactly the opposite conclusion. In his opinion, the amnesty law does not take away the full effectiveness of the counter-terrorism directive, but rather “it merely involves a partial and temporary “nullification” of its effects”.
Furthermore, the Code “meets the legal standards set by the European Court of Human Rights” as it “does not involve serious human rights violations, including violations of the right to life and bodily integrity”.
So what now?
General Counsel’s Opinion Not legally bindingbut it will set the path for the CJEU’s final judgment on the pardon, expected in early 2026. Judges retain the last word, but in the vast majority of cases (80%) they follow the recommendations of the president of the court.
The final verdict is CJEU Grand Chamber, composed of 15 judgesthere are no Spaniards among them. And this is not the first time that the judgment has departed from the Attorney General’s conclusions and returned to the European Commission’s opinion.
This is what happened, for example, in another high-pressure incident in Spain. floor clause. The European Commission has ruled that banks must refund to customers all excess charges since the mortgage was concluded, but the General Counsel has ruled that this requirement should not be applied retroactively.
The CJEU’s final judgment in this case disqualified the Attorney General and upheld Brussels’ original position.
One of Mr. Juntz’s main demands for Mr. Sánchez to repair relations is precisely that the amnesty law also apply to Mr. Puigdemont himself. That’s in the last word constitutional courtawaiting CJEU guidelines.
About The Author
