On October 6, 2026, Carles Puigdemont made a public statement.
Just over a week later, on October 19, 2026, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a ruling that the amnesty law applies to Carles Puigdemont, the former president of Catalonia, as well as to Toni Comín and Lluís Puig. The decision lifted the detention orders that had been pending against them. On the same day, Judge Pablo Llarena, who had instructed the procés investigation, revalidated his earlier decision to cancel the preventive measures, confirming that the arrest warrants were now lifted.
Also on October 19, Judge Llarena confirmed that Carles Puigdemont can return to Spain without the risk of detention. He based this assurance on the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning amnesties and malfeasance, arguing that the criteria used by the high court were juridically founded and not imprevisible or inadmissible.
Llarena disagreed with the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the amnesty measure.
Vox had appealed the decision to lift the detention orders. Judge Llarena rejected that appeal, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s position and indicating that the legal challenge from the party would not succeed.
In his reasoning, Llarena said he applied the doctrine established by the Constitutional Court regarding the amnestied malversation to Puigdemont and the ex‑councillors. He used the same legal framework that the Constitutional Court had articulated, even as he prepared to voice his own reservations about how that court had expressed its view.
Llarena disagreed with the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the amnesty measure. He criticized the court for what he described as a lack of ‘mesura’—a shortage of moderation—and for the fracturing evident in its deliberations. The brief captures his concern in a quoted remark: “Que casi la mitad del Tribunal Constitucional considere constitucionalmente admisible esa interpretación aconsejaba una mesura en los calificativos que no se advierte en la rotundidad de su censura.” In English, this conveys that nearly half of the Constitutional Court finding the interpretation constitutionally admissible should have advised moderation in its language, a moderation that is absent from the force of its criticism.
While the Supreme Court’s decision lifted the detention orders, Llarena made clear that it does not bring about the definitive closure of the case against Puigdemont and the former ministers. Instead, it signals the end of the current legal proceedings, leaving any further investigation pending but without the coercive measure of arrest.
On October 31, 2026, the Supreme Court once again confirmed its decision to lift Puigdemont’s detention order, reinforcing the earlier rulings and providing a final judicial statement on the matter.
As of late October 2026, Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín, and Lluís Puig are legally permitted to re‑enter Spain without facing immediate detention, following a series of Supreme Court rulings upheld by Judge Pablo Llarena. The judge’s support for the high court’s amnesty interpretation sits alongside his criticism of the Constitutional Court’s tone, highlighting a moment where legal agreement coexists with institutional disagreement. The case remains open in the sense that investigations may continue, but the immediate threat of arrest has been removed.