The Seville Provincial Court's decision to refer a preliminary question to the European Union regarding the Spanish Constitutional Court's rulings on the ERE case (a major corruption scandal in Andalusia) is unprecedented. This action has raised concerns, particularly for those involved in the 'procés' case, including Carles Puigdemont.
This legal maneuver creates the possibility that the Supreme Court could similarly refer a question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the amnesty law and its compatibility with EU law, specifically regarding the crime of embezzlement. Such a referral would automatically halt proceedings until the ECJ rules. This could affect the outstanding arrest warrant against Puigdemont.
Supreme Court Judge Pablo Llarena, who handles the 'procés' case, has already refused to apply the amnesty law to Puigdemont's embezzlement charges, citing the law's exclusion of cases involving personal financial gain. This is supported by the fact that the EU Directive 2017/1371 defines embezzlement as an intentional act of misusing public funds, aligning with Llarena's assessment of Puigdemont's actions.
While Llarena made this determination, other Supreme Court justices might also act. Their prior submission to the Constitutional Court already suggested the possibility of a similar prejudicial question to the ECJ, indicating potential for further action.
The president of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, is reportedly concerned and is trying to prevent any referral to the ECJ. The article suggests he is seeking to shield the amnesty law from European scrutiny, mindful of previous instances where the ECJ has ruled against rulings of national constitutional courts. The possibility of an ECJ ruling against the amnesty law is a significant concern for the Spanish government.