Politics

Judge Llarena rejects amnesty for Carles Puigdemont and keeps national arrest warrant in place

According to media reports on 15 September 2026, Pablo Llarena, the investigating judge at the Tribunal Supremo, has rejected the application of Spain’s amnesty to Carles Puigdemont for the offence of Malversación and left the national arrest warrant against him…

Briefing

The main point of the news: according to consistent reports from major Spanish media outlets, the investigating judge of the Sala de lo Penal of the Tribunal Supremo, Pablo Llarena, on 15 September 2026 decided not to apply the national amnesty to former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont in relation to the offence of Malversación (misappropriation of public funds). As a result, the national arrest warrant against Puigdemont remains in force. The reports describe the decision as not definitively beyond review: Llarena reportedly acknowledged that his determination was not “irreversible” and could remain dependent on future decisions, particularly those of the Tribunal Constitucional.

The basis: the reports draw on a judicial order circulated on 15 September 2026 and press reports from reputable media outlets summarising the judge’s approach. Official publications by the Tribunal Supremo in previous years have already made clear that Llarena has restricted or declared the amnesty inapplicable in certain aspects of the proceedings; the current decision applies this approach specifically to Malversación in Puigdemont’s case.

Context and legal position: most recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH/TJUE) considered questions about the compatibility of the amnesty with EU law; media reports say that the CJEU did not declare the national legislation generally incompatible. However, its practical effect will depend on how the amnesty is interpreted by national courts and ultimately by the Tribunal Constitucional. Llarena’s comment on the possibility of reviewing his decision makes clear that the legal process is not yet over.

Verification note: this account is based on public press reports and available statements from the judiciary; at the time of checking, a fully annotated official text of the current judicial order was not yet available in the publicly accessible official documentation as a scanned original with footnotes. Such documents are authoritative for definitive legal assessments.

Editor: Phillipe Schmidt-Araguin (Article created with AI assistance).

Sources

End of article

Advertisement

From the PHOTRA network