Three judges of the Constitutional Court of Spain have called for a pause in the discussions regarding the Amnesty Law until the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provides clarity on whether the law contradicts EU law, particularly with regard to the prosecution of misappropriation, seen as a form of political corruption, and terrorism.

Conservatively aligned judges César Tolosa, Concepción Espejel, and Enrique Arnaldo have addressed a request to the court's president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, asking for this issue to be included on the agenda for the upcoming plenary session beginning tomorrow.

In their communication, the judges emphasize the necessity for the Constitutional Court to determine if the actions taken by various judicial bodies—including the Supreme Court, the National Court, the Court of Auditors, and the Criminal Court Number 3 of Vilanova i la Geltrú—in posing different preliminary questions to the CJEU could serve as an obstacle for the Constitutional Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the Amnesty Law without first waiting for the CJEU's response.

The judges also raised the question of whether the Constitutional Court itself has an obligation to submit a preliminary question to the CJEU regarding the law's compliance with EU regulations.

They argue that there is a significant synergy between the issues raised by the four Spanish courts in their respective preliminary questions and the contentions in the PP party's challenge against the law, which is expected to be the first case addressed by the Constitutional Court, as indicated by its president, who anticipates resolution prior to summer.

The plenary session is expected to address the recusal of Judge José María Macías, with a progressive majority poised to reject appeals filed by the PP and several regional governments, who argue their rights are compromised by excluding the former member of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) from the amnesty law debate.

This recusal will affect other pending appeals without providing an opportunity for the parties involved to respond.

Given the complexity of the case, and concerns raised by some judges requiring additional time to review the draft proposal to be presented by Vice President Inmaculada Montalbán, deliberations are projected to potentially extend over several sessions.

The progressive majority, consisting of six judges compared to four conservatives, positions the court toward favoring the constitutionality of the Amnesty Law.

The ruling may be finalized in the plenary session scheduled for between June 10 or, with a wider timeframe, during sessions from June 24 to June 26, according to various sources.