Puigdemont's Detention Order Lifted: Why Spain's Two High Courts Collided
On Oct. 6, 2026, investigating judge Pablo Llarena left without effect the detention order against Carles Puigdemont after learning that the Constitutional Court had upheld Dolors Bassa's appeal. Poder Judicial
The order came from the Tribunal Supremo, Spain's Supreme Court. Based in Madrid, it is the single court with authority across the whole country and the highest court for civil, criminal, administrative and social cases. Questions about constitutional guarantees and rights belong to the Constitutional Court. Poder Judicial
Puigdemont is a Catalan separatist leader living in self-exile. He left Spain after the 2017 independence bid, which Spanish courts ruled illegal. He faced an arrest warrant for alleged embezzlement, or misuse of public money, linked to the 2017 referendum. Reuters
According to that reporting, the Oct. 6 rulings cleared the way for Puigdemont to return to Spain without being arrested. That reflects the immediate effect of lifting a national detention order. Reuters
Until then, the Supreme Court had held that the main financial charge still applied. On July 1, 2024, it declared that misappropriation of public funds in the 'procés' case is not covered by amnesty, the law meant to forgive past offences. Poder Judicial It repeated that position later. Spain's top court upheld arrest warrants for Puigdemont and others charged with embezzlement despite amnesty, Reuters and on Sept. 15, 2026, the investigating judge rejected Puigdemont's request to apply amnesty to that offence.
There is also a European history. Spain's Supreme Court dropped a European arrest warrant for Puigdemont after Germany refused to extradite him. That left the domestic warrant as the active order.
The broader context here is institutional as much as political. Spain has two high courts with different jobs. The Supreme Court decides criminal responsibility. The Constitutional Court decides whether fundamental rights were respected. When the Constitutional Court rules for one defendant in the connected 'procés' case, the investigating judge must consider whether that logic applies to others in the same case.
In my view, specialists will focus on what did not change. Llarena did not reverse the Supreme Court's view that misappropriation falls outside amnesty. He left a detention order without effect after the Bassa decision. That distinction keeps the Supreme Court's reading of the amnesty law intact while accepting that constitutional review can limit detention and prosecution.
Looking at what this means for the next steps, the central question is return. A lifted national order removes the certainty of arrest on entry. It does not by itself settle the embezzlement allegation or the final scope of amnesty as both courts will define it. The enforcement risk has changed. The legal definition has not been finally settled.
