Judges César Tolosa, Concepción Espejel, and Enrique Arnaldo from Spain's Constitutional Court have urged the court's president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, to suspend the deliberation and ruling on a constitutional appeal submitted by the Popular Party (PP) against the amnesty law.

They argue that the court should first assess whether to pose a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

This request follows similar actions from Spain's Court of Accounts and three other ordinary jurisdiction courts.

In a formal statement, the judges indicated that if the Constitutional Court does not submit its own inquiry to the ECJ, it should halt the resolution of the PP's appeal until the ECJ issues a ruling on the already posed preliminary questions.

They cited the substantial overlap between the doubts raised before the ECJ and those central to the PP's claim of unconstitutionality regarding the amnesty law.

The judges further pointed out that a ruling by the Constitutional Court upholding the constitutionality of the amnesty for those involved in the Catalan independence movement could not be applied immediately.

They highlighted that the applicability of a national law, even if constitutional, is contingent upon the ECJ declaring that the amnesty law complies with EU law.

The judicial brief examined the preliminary questions submitted by various judicial entities, including the Tribunal de Cuentas, the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, the National Court, and a Criminal Court in Vilanova i La Geltrú.

It acknowledged that the inquiries regarding compatibility with EU law, including issues of public fund misappropriation by certain independence leaders, align with the matters that the Constitutional Court must evaluate regarding their constitutionality.

Judges Tolosa, Espejel, and Arnaldo emphasized the necessity for a genuine and lawful collaboration with the ECJ, given that one of the core values defining the essence of the EU is the rule of law and its derived principles.

They recommended that the Constitutional Court should submit its own preliminary question to the ECJ, asserting that this is the only opportunity for the court to clarify the constitutional demands in relation to the amnesty law.

They indicated that should the court choose not to approach the ECJ, the prudent course of action would be to await the response from the ECJ regarding the existing preliminary questions.

They cautioned that if the Constitutional Court were to rule on the constitutionality of the amnesty law without obtaining a preliminary ruling from the ECJ, it could result in a paradox where the law, despite being declared constitutional, could not be immediately applied.

The judges emphasized that even post-judgment, judicial bodies would still retain the authority to raise questions regarding compatibility with EU law pertaining to the amnesty law.

Moreover, they regarded this obligation to wait as not only applicable to the courts that have already sought guidance from the ECJ but also to all remaining proceedings related to the amnesty to ensure the full effectiveness of the ECJ's ruling.

This position taken by the three judges presents a significant challenge to Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, and other former members of the Catalan government.

Puigdemont, who has been in self-imposed exile for over seven years, is awaiting the Constitutional Court's decision, while Junqueras seeks to lift his ongoing disqualification following a conviction for misappropriation.