Supreme Court’s “wedding” analogy to block Puigdemont amnesty faces constitutional rebuke

In a recent ruling, Supreme Court magistrate Pablo Llarena compared the 1-O referendum to a lavish wedding financed by the state, claiming Carles Puigdemont profited personally because the costs did not come from his own pocket. The Criminal Chamber adopted this metaphor, suggesting that any public-funded expense that increases a private fortune constitutes enrichment. Dissenting magistrate Ana Ferrer dismissed the comparison as a “legal fiction.”

Both the Spanish Constitutional Court and the EU Court of Justice have already ruled that the amnesty law is constitutional and that the referendum did not affect European economic interests. The Constitutional Court is set to debate the “wedding” thesis in a plenary meeting, where conservative judge José María Macías is expected to uphold the Supreme Court’s narrative, while progressive judges are likely to reject it. The debate unfolds amid broader political calculations ahead of municipal elections and the anticipated return of Puigdemont, highlighting the judiciary’s role in the ongoing independence dispute.