The Constitutional Court protects Bassa and orders the Supreme Court to amnesty his embezzlement

The Constitutional Court has granted protection to former minister Dolors Bassa i Coll and has annulled the orders through which the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court denied her the application of amnesty for the crime of embezzlement of public funds. The decision is contained in judgment 67/2026, of October 6, 2026 (ECLI:ES:TC:2026:67), published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) no. 282, of November 12, 2026, Constitutional Court Section, p. 152933 (reference BOE-A-2026-23753). The ruling is not limited to annulment: it orders the Supreme Court to issue a new resolution declaring that crime amnestied.

The judicial path leading to the protection

The appeal for protection (recurso de amparo) 8547-2024 was resolved by the Plenary, with the report of its president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido Tourón, and with the intervention of the State Attorney, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Vox as popular prosecution, and other convicted parties appearing.

The milestones of the case are:

• Judgment 459/2019, of October 14, 2019, of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, issued in special cause 20907-2017, convicted her of sedition in concurrence with aggravated embezzlement to twelve years in prison and twelve years of absolute disqualification.
• Royal Decree 456/2021, of June 22, pardoned her pending custodial sentence.
• Following Organic Law 14/2022, of December 22, the Supreme Court reviewed the sentence (ATS of February 13, 2023) and reclassified it as disobedience under art. 410 CP and embezzlement under art. 432.1 and 2 CP, maintaining the absolute disqualification, with expiration scheduled for October 10, 2031.
• With Organic Law 1/2024, of June 10, on amnesty, the Chamber issued respective orders on July 1 and September 30, 2024, which denied the definitive closure of the execution of the sentence.

The two causes for exclusion rejected by the court

The Supreme Court argued that embezzlement was not eligible for amnesty for two reasons within the law itself: having obtained a “personal benefit of a patrimonial nature” (art. 1.1 a) and b) and 1.4) and affecting the financial interests of the European Union (art. 2 e).

The Constitutional Court considers that this reading constitutes a teleological reduction, rather than a strict interpretation, of the core of the rule, and that it confuses the profit motive inherent to the criminal type with the legal exception. Regarding art. 2 e), it finds an internal contradiction with the proven facts narrative of 459/2019, which declared the acts to achieve independence manifestly unfeasible, and with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of July 16, 2026 (case C-523/24, Sociedad Civil Catalana). It concludes that the right to effective judicial protection (art. 24.1 CE) was violated, in connection with arts. 23.2 and 25.1 CE.

The ruling and its scope

The operative part agrees:

1st Declare the nullity of the orders of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court dated July 1 and September 30, 2024.
2nd Remand the proceedings to the moment immediately preceding the first of them so that a new ruling may be issued declaring the crime of embezzlement amnestied, with preferential and urgent character in accordance with art. 10 of the Amnesty Law.

Five magistrates disagree

The dissenting opinion is signed by Ricardo Enríquez Sancho, Enrique Arnaldo Alcubilla, Concepción Espejel Jorquera, César Tolosa Tribiño, and José María Macías Castaño. Their two central motives are the usurpation of the Supreme Court’s role in the interpretation of ordinary legality and disagreement with the method employed; they specifically criticize that the judgment indicates to the high court the concrete sense of the resolution it must adopt and the tone of the reasoning.

The publication in the BOE turns this doctrine into a mandatory reference for the courts that have yet to rule on the amnesty for embezzlement in cases related to the independence process, and reopens the institutional struggle between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in the midst of political discussion regarding the limits of Organic Law 1/2024.

Source: Official State Gazette, no. 282, of November 12, 2026, Constitutional Court Section, page 152933 (official reference: BOE-A-2026-23753).