Separatist leader Puigdemont can return to Spain

After nine years in exile in Belgium, Catalan separatist leader Carles Puigdemont could return to his native Spain. The constitutional court there decided that the arrest warrant against the 63-year-old must be revoked.

The underlying procedure did not directly relate to the former Catalan head of government. But the Spanish Constitutional Court paved the way for Puigdemont's return with a ruling in the case of Catalan separatists Dolors Bassa. Bassa had taken action against an existing ban on holding office.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2024 amnesty would also remove allegations of embezzlement. This means that the basis for the arrest warrant against Puigdemont and other Catalan separatists no longer applies.

Accusation of rebellion

In 2017, Puigdemont called a referendum on the secession of Catalonia against the wishes of the Spanish central government and then declared independence. The central government viewed this as a rebellion. Puigdemont fled into exile in Belgium. Some members of his then Catalan regional government also fled abroad, and others of his comrades-in-arms were sentenced to long prison sentences.

However, the charge of rebellion was later dropped because the separatists did not incite violence in 2017. The crime of rioting was abolished in 2023. But Puigdemont was still accused of embezzling public funds.

Supreme Court rejected amnesty

Despite an active arrest warrant and several arrests - including in Germany in 2018 - the former Catalan head of government was never extradited to Spain. In May 2024, the Spanish Parliament passed an amnesty law that provided for the pardon of Catalan separatists - including Puigdemont.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to apply the amnesty to Puigdemont and other comrades-in-arms. The argument: Funds allegedly embezzled to finance the independence referendum would represent a personal financial advantage. Because the politicians used state money to finance their own political goals instead of using their own assets for them. And this circumstance is not covered by the amnesty law.

Now the opposite decision from the Constitutional Court, from whose point of view the embezzlement of public funds does not constitute personal enrichment. This eliminates the basis for bans from holding office or arrest warrants. The Supreme Court followed this decision and overturned the arrest warrant.