EU Advocate General backs lifting EU Parliamentary immunity for Puigdemont

The Advocate General of the Court of the European Union has backed lifting former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont's immunity during his time as a member of the European Parliament. The lawyer, Maciej Szpunar, released his non-binding opinion on Thursday morning.

The decision also affects former pro-independence Junts MEPs Clara Ponsatí and Toni Comín, who were stripped of their immunity back in March 2021. At the time, the European Parliament lifted their immunity following a petition from Spain's Supreme Court, which attempted to try the three politicians for sedition, misuse of public funds, and disobedience for their involvement in organizing the 2017 independence referendum.

The three pro-independence figures appealed the EU Parliament's decision, and although they are no longer MEPs, the case continues in the Luxembourg court.

In 2021, the three leaders faced an arrest warrant for extradition to Spain. The decision of the EU Parliament caused huge expectations, as lifting immunity could be a first step for Puigdemont to be arrested and extradited from Belgium.

Nowadays, Puigdemont continues to live in Belgium while he awaits a ruling on his appeal to be granted an amnesty based on Spain's amnesty law on pro-independence figures. Ponsatí returned to Catalonia when the charges of sedition were dropped, and Comín was voted MEP in 2024 but has not yet been named a member of the chamber.

Reject three grounds of appeal

In his opinion addressed to the EU Court, Szpunar has proposed to reject the three grounds of appeal brought by Toni Comín regarding his immunity. While Puigdemont and Ponsatí are no longer MEPs and have no interest in bringing proceedings, Comín has appealed the decision of the General Court from July 5, 2023.

The General Court had dismissed their appeals against the European Parliament brought forward by the three pro-independence politicians.

Szpunar has recommended that the Court of Justice reject all the arguments put forward against the General Court's judgment in the three pleas. He believes that the court "did not err in the interpretation and application of the rules" when it decided to waive parliamentary immunity.

The advocate general's opinion is not binding and, in complete independence, it proposes a legal solution to the Court of Justice.

Judgment will be given at a later date that has not yet been announced.