The amusing arguments of the CJEU to endorse Sánchez's infamous amnesty law

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has today washed its hands of one of the biggest attacks on the rule of law in Spain.

Amnesty, the greatest act of corruption in the entire history of democracy in Spain
The alarming circular argument of one of the EU's advocates general on amnesty

An attack on the rule of law that was rejected by numerous entities within the judicial sphere

This Thursday, the CJEU has endorsed the Spanish amnesty law with which Pedro Sánchez granted criminal impunity to his separatist allies in exchange for the votes necessary for his re-election, a serious attack on the rule of law perpetrated for reasons of pure political convenience for the government. This earned the rejection of numerous Spanish institutions, including 26 entities in the judicial field, including the Supreme Court, the 17 High Courts of Justice and the 4 largest judges' associations, in addition to all the prosecutors' associations.

This outcome was predictable after the release of the two reports by the Advocate General of the European Union (EU) on this amnesty in November 2025. These reports considered Sánchez's law not to be a self-amnesty law simply because it was not issued by an "authoritarian power", a circular argument that would allow any political power in Europe to do as it pleases, since no EU member state is an authoritarian regime. At least not yet. With today's rulings by the CJEU, Spain is closer to becoming one. The CJEU usually adopts the arguments of the Advocate General of the EU, which saves it a lot of time, effort and conflict when making a decision.

Does one abstract argument make another argument less abstract?

If the EU Advocate General already wielded a dangerous circular argument to endorse that law, the arguments offered today by the CJEU are certainly amusing. These arguments are set out in the press release published today by the court. On the one hand, the CJEU considers that "the abstract definition of the acts included in this exclusion from amnesty, and in particular the fact that the amnesty law does not specify in detail the exact nature of all these acts nor set a threshold of seriousness for them, does not violate the requirements of the principle of legal certainty."

The CJEU considers that "the aforementioned exclusion provision refers to legal concepts of criminal law, such as intent, causation, and the gravity of a human rights violation, which should not pose application difficulties for the competent courts." In other words, one abstract definition makes another less abstract, simply because the problem remains in the hands of the very same courts that asked the CJEU to rule on this law. It is outrageous to see such a lax attitude toward political power in an EU that is obsessively strict with its citizens, regulating even the smallest aspects of our lives, dictating even the design of bottle caps or pillows.

Does giving preferential treatment to government partners in exchange for their votes respect the principle of equality?

Furthermore, the CJEU states that "the Spanish amnesty law respects the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, since, in light of its express purpose of promoting political reconciliation solely within the context of a particular political movement, the crimes committed in that context and the crimes committed in other contexts cannot be considered comparable." This is utterly absurd. The government that made a specific distinction for the crimes committed by Catalan separatists in the 2017 coup attempt was precisely an ally of those separatists. What the Sánchez government did was grant preferential treatment to its allies because it needed their votes, and now the CJEU says that this does not violate the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

I admit I couldn't help but laugh when I read those arguments. One would expect more serious reasoning from an institution like the CJEU, especially considering that this amnesty undermines several of the foundations of democracy in Spain and that European institutions cost all citizens of member states a fortune.

Laxity for a socialist government and obsessive bureaucracy for the citizens

That said, I won't say I'm disappointed, because the degradation of EU institutions has been evident for some time now. They have been very strict with conservative governments like those of Poland and Hungary, but now they are washing their hands of one of the biggest attacks on the rule of law in Spain, an attack committed by a socialist government, one of the political groups that make up the current coalition controlling the European Commission. In the end, the entire bureaucratic apparatus created in the EU serves to approve the abuses of a socialist government while citizens must comply with all kinds of directives, a regulatory maze that subjects Europe to political and bureaucratic excesses that weigh down our economy and erode our freedoms.

With this ruling by the CJEU, the EU institutions are sending a clear message to Spaniards: we are alone in the face of a corrupt and despotic government. This doesn't change our situation, obviously. We were already alone before. What does change is the perception that many Spaniards will now have of the European Union. The politicians of the social-democratic consensus (which includes both the Socialists and the European People's Party, who are now indistinguishable in many of their ideological positions) have created an EU that increasingly resembles the free and democratic Europe they promised us. Then they shouldn't complain about the rise of "Euroscepticism." They themselves are fueling it.

---

Photo: Efe.