As of September 2024, the legal case against Carles Puigdemont, the former President of Catalonia, has been temporarily suspended. Puigdemont, who fled Spain in 2017 following a controversial independence referendum, has faced charges of treason and rebellion from Spanish authorities. His departure from Spain was in response to accusations that his actions sought to secede Catalonia from Spain unlawfully.
The case, which has drawn considerable international attention, saw Puigdemont living in self-imposed exile while Spanish courts sought his extradition. However, recent developments have led to the suspension of legal proceedings. This pause comes amid evolving political and legal landscapes in both Spain and the European Union. The reasons for the suspension could be linked to ongoing diplomatic negotiations, legal reforms, or changes in political priorities within Spain.
The case’s status remains fluid, with potential implications for Catalan independence movements, regional politics, and Spain’s judicial system. Stakeholders are closely watching how this development might affect future legal actions and political dynamics.
As of September 2024, the deliberation on the treason case against former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont is stalled. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has yet to schedule the review of the reasoned statement issued last June by Judge Joaquín Aguirre of the Barcelona Investigating Court. Aguirre had indicated that there was sufficient evidence to support treason charges against Puigdemont and other individuals involved.
Despite initial expectations that the deliberation would proceed promptly, the case is currently on hold due to unresolved appeals in the Provincial Court of Barcelona. These appeals pertain to a segment of the broader ‘Volhov case,’ which links Puigdemont and his close associates to alleged Russian funding of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum.
The procedural delay arises from the need for the Barcelona Court to address appeals filed by Puigdemont and other defendants challenging Aguirre’s June order, which deemed the crime of treason non-inestimable. The Provincial Court must first resolve these appeals before the Supreme Court can act. This procedural constraint is due to the amnesty law, which prohibits the Supreme Court from reviewing cases not previously under its jurisdiction before the law’s enactment. Consequently, the Supreme Court remains unable to advance with the case until the Provincial Court has rendered its decision.
A clear political bias
The ongoing treason case against former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont faces significant delays due to legal and political complexities. Central to the current impasse is a provision in the recent amnesty law, which the Government promoted in collaboration with Junts during its parliamentary process. This provision, resulting from a secret agreement between Pedro Sánchez and Carles Puigdemont mediated in Geneva, effectively prevents the Supreme Court from adjudicating matters involving Puigdemont, shifting this responsibility to the Provincial Courts—in this case, Barcelona.
This legislative maneuver reflects Junts’ strategic push to marginalize the Supreme Court’s role in decisions affecting Puigdemont. The aim appears to be to limit the Supreme Court’s involvement in adjudicating cases related to the fugitive former president.
Currently, the Supreme Court remains unable to proceed with the deliberation of Judge Joaquín Aguirre’s reasoned statement, which asserts there is sufficient evidence for treason charges against Puigdemont. This is contingent upon the resolution of pending appeals in the Provincial Court of Barcelona. The court must first address challenges to Aguirre’s decision that deemed the crime of treason non-amnestiable.
In addition to this, Judge Pablo Llarena has maintained his stance against granting Puigdemont amnesty for the misappropriation of public funds. Moreover, the Supreme Court had to close the case on Tsunami Democràtic’s violent acts due to a procedural error by the former National Court judge, Manuel García Castellón. This error, involving an unauthorized extension of the investigation period, led to the case’s dismissal, which had originally implicated Puigdemont in terrorism—an offense explicitly excluded from the amnesty law.
Looking ahead, if the Supreme Court’s Admissions Chamber deems Aguirre’s evidence reliable, it may initiate a new case against Puigdemont. This development could further complicate Puigdemont’s legal challenges, independent of the Constitutional Court’s decisions anticipated within the next six months.
“Weak flanks”
The Supreme Court of Spain is poised to make a critical decision regarding the treason case against former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont. At this juncture, the Court will have three potential courses of action: it may admit the investigation (with Magistrate Antonio del Moral currently serving as rapporteur), reject it, or return it to Judge Joaquín Aguirre for further clarification on the evidence against Puigdemont. The reasoned statement by Aguirre is notably comprehensive, addressing issues such as ‘hybrid wars’ and the challenges posed by new forms of terrorism and cybercrime, including cryptocurrency-related activities. However, legal experts suggest that the statement may have “weak technical aspects” in justifying the treason charges specifically against Puigdemont.
The procedural landscape surrounding this case adds significant complexity. In early June, the Provincial Court instructed Judge Aguirre to conclude his investigation into the so-called Russian connection of the ‘procés.’ Section 21 of the Court highlighted that the investigation period had lapsed after numerous extensions and demanded that Aguirre decide whether to archive the case or proceed to trial.
Concurrently, following the enactment of the amnesty law, Aguirre rejected the possibility of amnesty for Puigdemont without awaiting the Prosecutor’s Office’s opinion. Instead, Aguirre initiated a separate investigation into alleged links between the Catalan independence movement and Russia, which also implicated another former president of the Generalitat, Artur Mas. This investigation proceeded despite the Provincial Court’s earlier directive.
Compounding the confusion, Puigdemont and other defendants have filed a complaint against Judge Aguirre with the High Court of Justice of Catalonia, alleging judicial misconduct. The resolution of this complaint remains pending. These factors collectively contribute to the legal entanglement surrounding the Volhov case, which remains unresolved due to the constraints imposed by the amnesty law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the current status of the treason case against Carles Puigdemont?
As of September 2024, the case is on a procedural hold. The Supreme Court has yet to review Judge Joaquín Aguirre’s reasoned statement, which proposes treason charges against Puigdemont. The review is stalled due to unresolved appeals in the Provincial Court of Barcelona and other procedural complexities.
Why is the Supreme Court unable to proceed with the case?
The Supreme Court is currently constrained by the amnesty law, which prevents it from adjudicating cases not previously under its jurisdiction before the law’s enactment. This law shifts the responsibility for these decisions to the Provincial Courts. Additionally, the Provincial Court must resolve pending appeals regarding Aguirre’s determination that treason is not subject to amnesty.
What are the critical issues with Judge Aguirre’s reasoned statement?
Legal experts have pointed out that Aguirre’s statement, while extensive, may have technical weaknesses in substantiating the treason charges specifically against Puigdemont. The statement covers broad topics like ‘hybrid wars’ and modern forms of terrorism, which may not directly support the specific treason accusations.
What impact does the amnesty law have on this case?
The amnesty law, enacted as part of a political agreement, limits the Supreme Court’s ability to review cases involving Puigdemont. It places the decision-making power with the Provincial Courts for cases that were not under Supreme Court jurisdiction before the law came into effect.
What are the potential outcomes if the Supreme Court decides to proceed with the case?
If the Supreme Court deems the evidence sufficient, it may open a new case against Puigdemont, potentially complicating his legal situation further. This outcome will depend on the resolution of the appeals and any additional investigations or decisions by the Constitutional Court.
How might this case affect Puigdemont’s future?
The ongoing legal and procedural delays, combined with potential new charges, could significantly impact Puigdemont’s future. The complexities of the case and the interplay of political and legal factors will likely influence the trajectory of his legal battles and political activities.
Conclusion
The legal landscape surrounding Carles Puigdemont’s treason case remains intricate and evolving. Currently, procedural delays and the constraints of the amnesty law have stalled the Supreme Court’s ability to advance the case. The Provincial Court of Barcelona’s pending appeals and other procedural issues add further complexity. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decisions will be crucial in determining the future direction of the case, including whether to admit, reject, or seek further clarification on the investigation.
As the situation develops, it will have significant implications not only for Puigdemont but also for the broader political and legal context in Spain. Stakeholders and observers will need to stay attuned to further legal rulings and political maneuvers that could impact the outcome of this high-profile case.
