Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:891
Date: 2025-11-13
Language of the case: Spanish

Summary C-666/24 – 1 
Case C-666/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
26 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Penal, Sección Tercera (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
5 September 2024 
Prosecuting parties: 
Ministerio Fiscal 
Associació Catalana de Víctimes d’Organitzacions Terroristes 
(ACVOT) 
Asociación de Víctimas del Terrorismo (AVT) 
Asociación Dignidad y Justicia 
Asociación Española de la Guardia Civil (AEGC) 
Asociación Unificada de la Guardia Civil (AUGC) 
Partido político VOX 
Defendants: 
EGB 
EGC 
SPG 
QCR 
GTA 
ACB 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
2  
JRS 
RJDL 
FJG 
XBLL 
DBA 
CBE 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Criminal proceedings concerning offences of terrorism. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Request for a preliminary ruling on interpretation (Article 267 TFEU). 
Examination of the compatibility of certain provisions of Ley Orgánica 1/2024, de 
10 de junio, de amnistía para la normalización institucional, política y social en 
Cataluña (Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, 
political and social normalisation in Catalonia) with EU law. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
First question: Must Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council 
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 
2005/671/JHA be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Organic 
Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social 
normalisation in Catalonia, which prohibits the prosecution of and, as the case 
may be, the imposition of criminal penalties on, those who actively participate in 
the activities of a terrorist group, thereby extinguishing their criminal liability? 
Second question: Must Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council 
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 
2005/671/JHA, specifically Article 13 thereof, be interpreted as precluding 
national legislation, such as Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for 
institutional, political and social normalisation in Catalonia, which prohibits the 
prosecution of and, as the case may be, the imposition of criminal penalties on, 
those who actively participate in the activities of a terrorist group, thereby 
extinguishing their criminal liability, by laying down an additional requirement 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
3 
for the purposes of punishment, to the effect that, in addition to participation in a 
terrorist group, those persons must actually and intentionally have caused serious 
breaches of human rights? 
Third question: Must Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council 
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 
2005/671/JHA be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Organic 
Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social 
normalisation in Catalonia, which, in respect of the terrorist offences and offences 
related to a terrorist group laid down in that directive, draws a distinction 
according to whether or not those offences actually and intentionally caused 
serious breaches of human rights, such that that distinction makes it possible for 
some of those terrorist offences or offences related to terrorism to be exempted 
from criminal liability? 
Fourth question: Must the principle of legal certainty in EU law, which is 
enshrined in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Organic Law 1/2024 of 
10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social normalisation in 
Catalonia, which makes the exemption from criminal liability through the amnesty 
for persons accused of conduct capable of falling within the scope of Directive 
(EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 
on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 
2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA subject to the 
condition that they must not have intentionally caused serious breaches of human 
rights, in particular the rights governed by Articles 2 and 3 of the European 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and 
international humanitarian law, without stipulating which acts constitute such 
infringements or the threshold of seriousness which must be passed in order to 
render the amnesty inoperative? Alternatively, are the principles of legitimate 
expectations and legal certainty in EU law incompatible with a rule, such as that 
contained in Article 1 of Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for 
institutional, political and social normalisation in Catalonia, which sets vague 
objective and subjective parameters for determining whether or not criminal 
liability has been established? 
Fifth question: Must Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council 
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 
2005/671/JHA be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Organic 
Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social 
normalisation in Catalonia, which prohibits the prosecution of and, as the case 
may be, the imposition of criminal penalties on, those who manufacture, possess, 
acquire, transport, supply or use explosives for terrorist purposes, thereby 
extinguishing their criminal liability? 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
4  
Sixth question: Must Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council 
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 
2005/671/JHA be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Organic 
Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social 
normalisation in Catalonia, which prohibits the prosecution of and, as the case 
may be, the imposition of criminal penalties on – thereby extinguishing their 
criminal liability – those who, for terrorist purposes, commence violent acts by 
setting targets for extensive destruction on the grounds that those targets represent 
a conflict with the ideology of the terrorist group, by the performance of 
surveillance or by the photographic documentation of public places to destroy – in 
particular, premises of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, State law enforcement 
authorities, autonomous institutions, and police vehicles – all with a view to 
ensuring the full execution of the violent plan devised by the terrorist group, with 
the aim of successfully carrying out that destruction? 
Seventh question: Must the principle of primacy of EU law, which is enshrined in 
the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the principle of 
cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 4(3) TEU be interpreted as 
precluding national legislation, such as Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on 
amnesty for institutional, political and social normalisation in Catalonia, which 
exempts from criminal liability through the amnesty persons accused of conduct 
which falls within the scope of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and 
replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council 
Decision 2005/671/JHA? 
Eighth question: Must Article 20 and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation, 
such as Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, 
political and social normalisation in Catalonia, which exempts from criminal 
liability through the amnesty persons accused of criminal acts in Spain which fall 
within the scope of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council 
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 
2005/671/JHA, by reason of the ideological aim pursued through those criminal 
acts? 
Ninth question: Must Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 20(2)(a) and 21(1) TFEU be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Organic Law 1/2024 of 
10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social normalisation in 
Catalonia, which, through the amnesty, exempts persons accused of terrorism 
from criminal liability on the grounds that the acts concerned were committed 
with the aim of segregating part of the national territory of that Member State? 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
5 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
– Treaty on European Union, Article 2, Article 4(2) and (3), and 
Article 6. In conjunction with the latter article, Articles 2 and 3 of the 
European Convention on Human Rights are also cited. 
– Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 20(2)(a), 21 
and 83. 
– Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 20, 21 
and 47. 
– Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing 
Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council 
Decision 2005/671/JHA, recitals 2, 3, 6, 8, 34, 35 and 39 and Article 1; 
Article 2(3); Article 3(1)(d) and (f), and (2); Article 4; Article 13, 
Article 14 and Article 15(1) to (3). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
– The Constitución (Spanish Constitution) 
i) Article 9(3) of the Constitution provides that it ‘guarantees the 
principle of legality, the hierarchy of legal provisions, the 
publicity of legal enactments, the non-retroactivity of punitive 
measures that are unfavourable to or restrict individual rights, the 
certainty that the rule of law will prevail, the accountability of 
the public authorities, and the prohibition against arbitrary action 
on the part of the latter.’ 
ii) Article 25 of the Constitution provides that ‘no one may be 
convicted or sentenced in respect of acts or omissions which, at 
the time when they took place, did not constitute an indictable 
offence, a summary offence or an administrative offence, in 
accordance with the legislation in force at that time.’ 
– Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal 
(Organic Law 10/1995 of 23 November 1995 on the Criminal Code 
(‘the Criminal Code’) 
i) Article 16 of the Criminal Code provides that ‘there is an attempt 
where the individual concerned initiates execution of the offence 
directly through external acts, carrying out all or some of the 
actions which objectively should produce the outcome, and that 
outcome does not however occur owing to reasons outside the 
perpetrator’s control.’ 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
6  
ii) Article 62 of the Criminal Code provides that ‘perpetrators of an 
attempted offence shall receive a sentence one or two levels 
lower than that indicated by the Law for the committed offence, 
and of a length which is deemed appropriate in the light of the 
danger inherent in the attempt and the level of execution 
reached.’ 
iii) Article 346 of the Criminal Code is worded as follows: 
‘1. Anyone who, by creating explosions or using any other 
method having a similar destructive force, causes the destruction 
of airports, ports, stations, buildings, public places, warehouses 
containing flammable or explosive materials, communication 
routes, public modes of transport, or the sinking or grounding of 
a ship, flooding, the blowing up of a mine or industrial plant, the 
removal of rails from a railway line, malicious changes to the 
signals used for the railway line to ensure the safety of modes of 
transport, the blowing up of a bridge, the destruction of public 
roads, damage to oil pipelines, serious disruption of any kind or 
means of communication, disruption or interruption of the supply 
of water, electricity, hydrocarbons or another essential natural 
resource, shall be imprisoned for a term of 10 to 20 years, where 
the destruction automatically endangers the lives or integrity of 
individuals. 
2. Where there is no such danger, the punishment shall be a 
term of imprisonment of four to eight years. 
3. If, in addition to danger, injury is caused to the lives, 
physical integrity or health of individuals, those acts shall be 
punished separately with the sentence applicable to the offence 
committed.’ 
iv) Article 571 of the Criminal Code provides that, ‘for the purposes 
of this Code, associations which satisfy the characteristics laid 
down, respectively, in the second subparagraph of 
Article 570bis(1) and in the second subparagraph of 
Article 570ter(1), and which have as their aim or objective the 
commission of any of the offences defined in the next section, 
shall be considered to be terrorist organisations or groups.’ 
v) In accordance with Article 572 of the Criminal Code: 
‘1. Anyone who promotes, sets up, organises or directs a 
terrorist organisation or group shall be punished with a prison 
sentence of eight to 15 years and disqualification from holding 
any public office during the term of the sentence. 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
7 
2. Anyone who actively participates in or is a member of the 
organisation or group shall be punished with a prison sentence of 
six to 12 years and disqualification from holding any public 
office during the term of the sentence.’ 
vi) Article 573 of the Criminal Code provides: 
‘1. The following shall be considered a terrorist offence: the 
commission of any serious offence against life or physical 
integrity, freedom, psychological integrity, sexual offences, 
financial crime, offences against natural resources or the 
environment, public health, catastrophic risk, arson, forgery of 
documents, offences against the Crown, attacks and the 
possession, trafficking and storing of weapons, munitions or 
explosives, as provided for in this Code, and the seizure of 
aircraft, ships or other modes of public or goods transport, where 
these are carried out with any of the following aims: 
1. Subverting the constitutional order or abolishing or 
seriously destabilising the operation of political institutions 
or the economic or social structures of the State, or 
compelling the public authorities to perform or abstain 
from performing an act. 
2. Causing a serious breach of the public peace. 
3. Seriously destabilising the operation of an international 
organisation. 
4. Creating a state of terror in the population or part of the 
population. 
2. The computer-related offences defined in Articles 197bis 
and 197ter and 264 to 264quater shall also be considered 
terrorist offences where the acts are committed with any of the 
aims referred to in the previous paragraph. 
3. The other offences defined in this Chapter shall also be 
considered terrorist offences.’ 
vii) Article 573bis of the Criminal Code provides: 
‘1. The terrorist offences referred to in paragraph 1 of the 
previous article shall be punished with the following sentences: 
[…] 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
8  
3. A term of imprisonment of 15 to 20 years where a 
miscarriage is caused as referred to in Article 144, where injuries 
are caused of the kind defined in Articles 149, 150, 157 or 158, 
where a person is kidnapped, or in the case of destruction or 
arson as provided for in Articles 346 and 351 respectively.’ 
viii) Article 574 of the Criminal Code provides: 
‘1. The storing of weapons or munitions, the possession or 
storing of explosive, flammable, incendiary or asphyxiating 
substances or devices, or their components, together with their 
manufacture, trafficking, transport or supply in any form, and the 
mere planting or use of such substances or of the appropriate 
means or devices, shall be punished with a prison sentence of 
eight to 15 years where the acts are committed with any of the 
aims set out in Article 573(1).’ 
– Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, 
political and social normalisation in Catalonia (‘the LOA’). 
i) The preamble of the LOA reads as follows: 
‘I (first paragraph) 
Any amnesty is conceived as a legal concept intended to exempt 
the application of provisions that are fully in force where the acts 
which have been declared or are defined as criminal offences or 
as giving rise to any other type of liability took place in a specific 
context. 
V (eighth and ninth paragraphs) 
[…] The proportionality of the law derives from the statement of 
the specific list of acts that have been declared or are defined as 
crimes and conducts to be amnestied and the necessary link 
between those crimes and conducts and the acts carried out in a 
period of time delimited by the law. This avoids a generic, 
imprecise determination, thus preventing the amnesty from 
covering other types of acts not directly connected to the 
independence process and its consequences, where the 
exoneration of such acts would have no place within the grounds 
on which this measure is based. All of this is connected to the 
principle that the penalty must be appropriate to the act and to the 
purpose of the legislation, which is tied to the mandate relating to 
optimisation of citizens’ rights derived from Article 9 of the 
Spanish Constitution and intended to apply to all public 
authorities, but particularly to the legislature […] 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
9 
VI (eighth paragraph) 
[…] An example of the foregoing is the reference to the acts 
provided for in Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on 
combating terrorism, or in Article 3 of the European Convention 
on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or 
degrading punishment or treatment, which constitute a limit that 
cannot be exceeded. However, it should be recalled that not all 
degrading acts are covered by that provision, since, for that to be 
the case, in addition to being unlawful, the act must be of a 
minimum degree of seriousness. Thus, in accordance with the 
case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, for an act to be 
considered degrading in accordance with Article 3 of the 
Convention, it will usually be necessary for the bodily injury 
caused or the suffering experienced by the victim to be of a 
certain intensity or, in any event, to be capable of overcoming a 
person’s physical or psychological resilience. A strict criterion of 
exclusions has been opted for in the application of this Law, due 
to the fact that certain conduct may create confusion with other 
offences, which would occur in the case of certain acts included 
in Book II, Title XXII, Chapter VII of the Criminal Code. 
[…]’ 
i) Article 1 of the LOA provides: 
‘1. The following acts giving rise to criminal, administrative or 
accounting liability, performed in the context of the referendums 
held in Catalonia on 9 November 2014 and 1 October 2017, and 
activities involved in the preparation or consequences of those 
acts, are hereby amnestied, provided that they were performed 
between 1 November 2011 and 13 November 2023, as well as 
the following actions carried out between those dates in relation 
to the so-called Catalan independence process, even if they are 
not related to the abovementioned referendums or were carried 
out after those referendums took place: 
a) Acts committed with the intention of claiming, promoting 
or procuring the secession or independence of Catalonia, as well 
as those that have contributed to the achievement of such aims. 
In any case, this will be understood to include acts classified as 
offences of impersonation of a public official or 
misappropriation, only where the aim of those acts is to finance, 
pay for or enable any of the conduct described in the first 
subparagraph of this point, directly or through any public or 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
10  
private entity, provided that there was no aim of enrichment, and 
any other act classified as an offence having the same aim. 
This will also be understood to include those actions carried out, 
in a personal or institutional capacity, with the aim of 
disseminating the pro-independence project, gathering 
information and acquiring knowledge about similar experiences 
or getting other public or private entities to lend their support to 
the achievement of Catalan independence. 
Likewise, acts directly or indirectly linked to the so-called pro-
independence process in Catalonia or to its leaders within the 
framework of that process, and carried out by those who have 
manifestly or demonstrably provided assistance, cooperation, 
advice of any kind, representation, protection or security to those 
responsible for the conduct referred to in the first subparagraph 
of this point, or have obtained information to this end, will also 
be understood to be included. 
b) Acts committed with the intention of calling, promoting or 
procuring the holding of the referendums that took place in 
Catalonia on 9 November 2014 and 1 October 2017 by any 
person who lacked the authority to do so or whose actions in 
calling or holding those referendums have been declared 
unlawful, as well as those who contributed to the achievement of 
those events. 
In any case, this will be understood to include acts classified as 
offences of impersonation of a public official or of 
misappropriation, only where the aim of those acts is to finance, 
pay for or enable any of the conduct described in the previous 
subparagraph, provided that there was no aim of enrichment, and 
any other act classified as an offence having the same aim. 
c) Acts of disobedience, whatever their nature, public 
disorder, assaults on authority, its agents and public officials or 
acts of resistance carried out with the aim of enabling the holding 
of the popular referendums referred to in (b) of this article or the 
consequences of such acts, as well as any other acts defined as 
criminal offences carried out with the same intention. 
In any case, this will include acts classified as offences of breach 
of public duties or any other acts consisting in the approval or 
execution of laws, regulations or resolutions by public authorities 
or officials that have been carried out for the purpose of enabling, 
facilitating or assisting with the holding of the referendums 
referred to in (b) of this article. 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
11 
The following shall also be amnestied: acts of disrespect, 
criticisms or insults expressed against public authorities and 
officials, public entities and institutions, and against their 
symbols or emblems, including acts carried out through the press, 
in print, by social media, the internet or through the use of social 
networks and equivalent information society services, and in the 
course of demonstrations, gatherings, artistic or educational 
works or activities, or other activities of a similar nature having 
the aim of claiming the independence of Catalonia or the holding 
of the referendums referred to in (b) or providing public support 
to anyone who carried out the acts amnestied under this Law. 
d) Acts of disobedience, whatever their nature, public 
disorder, assaults on authority, its agents and public officials or 
acts of resistance or other acts against order and public peace 
carried out with the aim of demonstrating support for the 
objectives and aims described in the previous points or for those 
accused or convicted of carrying out any of the offences covered 
by this article. 
e) Acts carried out during police operations intended to 
impede or prevent the performance of the acts giving rise to 
criminal or administrative liability covered by this article. 
f) Acts committed with the aim of encouraging, procuring or 
enabling any of the acts giving rise to criminal, administrative or 
accounting liability referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this 
article, together with any other acts having a material connection 
to such acts. 
2. The acts giving rise to criminal, administrative or 
accounting liability amnestied under paragraph 1 of this article 
will be amnestied irrespective of their level of implementation, 
including preparatory acts, and irrespective of the form of 
involvement (perpetration or participation). 
3. Acts that were commenced before 1 November 2011 will 
be deemed to fall within the scope of this law only if they were 
completed after that date. 
Acts that were commenced before 13 November 2023 will also 
be deemed to fall within the scope of this law even if they were 
completed after that date. 
4. The application of public funds for the purposes described 
in (a) and (b) will not be considered enrichment if, irrespective of 
whether such use complies with the law, it was not intended for 
the purpose of obtaining a personal gain of a financial nature.’ 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
12  
iii) Article 2 of the LOA provides: 
‘In any case, the following are excluded from application of the 
amnesty described in Article 1: 
a) Intentional acts against persons which result in death, 
miscarriage or injuries to a foetus, the loss or uselessness of an 
organ or limb, the loss or uselessness of a sense, impotence, 
sterility or a serious deformity. 
b) Acts classified as offences of torture or inhuman or 
degrading treatment in accordance with Article 3 of the 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, with the exception of treatment which does not exceed 
a minimum threshold of seriousness on the grounds that it is not 
such as to humiliate or degrade a person or diminish their human 
dignity or provoke fear, anxiety or inferiority of a kind capable of 
overcoming their psychological and physical resilience. 
c) Acts which on account of their aim may be classified as 
terrorism, in accordance with Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on 
combating terrorism and which also have intentionally caused 
serious breaches of human rights, in particular those governed by 
Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of 
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by international 
humanitarian law. 
d) Acts classified as offences where it has been identified that 
these were motivated by racist, antisemitic, anti-Gypsy or other 
types of discrimination relating to the victim’s religion and 
beliefs, the victim’s ethnicity or race, sex, age, sexual or gender 
orientation or identity, reasons relating to gender, aporophobia or 
social exclusion, a disease from which they suffer or their 
disability, irrespective of whether those conditions or 
circumstances are actually present in the person on whom the 
conduct was perpetrated. 
e) Acts that constitute criminal offences affecting the financial 
interests of the European Union. 
f) Acts classified as offences of treason and offences against 
the peace or independence of State and concerning National 
Defence as referred to in Book II, Title XXIII of the Criminal 
Code, provided that there has been an actual and genuine threat 
and the use of actual force against the territorial integrity or the 
political independence of Spain in the terms laid down in the 
Charter of the United Nations or in Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
13 
the United Nations General Assembly of 24 October 1970, which 
includes a declaration relating to the principles of international 
law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States 
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 
g) Acts classified as crimes against the international 
community, covered by Book II, Title XXIV of the Criminal 
Code.’ 
iv) Article 3 of the LOA provides that ‘the amnesty declared under 
this law results in the extinction of criminal, administrative or 
accounting liability, in the terms laid down in this Title.’ 
v) Articles 4, 9, 10 and 11 of the LOA are also cited, although these 
are of no particular relevance to the resolution of the main 
proceedings. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The referring court is seised of criminal proceedings in which the 12 defendants 
listed on the cover page of this summary are accused of committing terrorist 
offences. 
2 In those proceedings, the Ministerio Fiscal (Public Prosecutor’s Office) has 
already lodged the indictment in which it accuses the 12 defendants of the offence 
of membership of a terrorist organisation (Articles 571 and 572(2) of the Criminal 
Code). Furthermore, the Ministerio Fiscal also alleges that the first eight 
defendants are responsible for the possession, storage and manufacture of 
explosive and flammable substances or devices or components thereof of a 
terrorist nature (Article 574(1) of the Criminal Code) and of attempted destruction 
of a terrorist nature (Article 573bis(1)(3), in conjunction with Articles 346(1), 16 
and 62 and 573(1)(1), (2) y (4) of the Criminal Code). 
3 For their part, the associations and the political party listed on the cover page of 
this summary (‘the people’s prosecution’) accuse the defendants of the same 
offences as they are accused of by the Ministerio Fiscal, albeit requesting higher 
sentences than those sought by the Ministerio Fiscal. 
4 While the proceedings were at the intermediate stage and after the indictments had 
been lodged, a legislative event of singular importance to these proceedings took 
place: on 11 June 2024, the LOA was published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado 
(BOE; Official Gazette of the Spanish State) and entered into force on the same 
date. 
5 Consequently, the referring court held a hearing for the parties so that they could 
state their views on whether the LOA should be applied in these proceedings. The 
defendants and the Ministerio Fiscal argued that the LOA should be applied and, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
14  
therefore, that the proceedings should be stayed. In contrast, the people’s 
prosecution expressed its opposition to the application of the LOA. 
6 The referring court must decide whether the LOA is applicable and, since it has 
questions concerning the compatibility of the LOA with European Union law, it 
has decided to submit this request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The Ministerio Fiscal states: 
• The LOA respects European and international commitments in the field of 
human rights. 
• There are precedents in the case-law of the Court of Justice (for example, the 
judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), 
C-665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339) which endorse the application of an amnesty, 
albeit as grounds for non-execution of a European arrest warrant. 
8 The defendants claim: 
• The LOA does not repeal articles of the Criminal Code which transpose 
Directive 2017/541 or breach a Member State’s obligations with regard to the 
prosecution of terrorist offences, since it is an exceptional leniency measure which 
does not affect the application of the legal system. 
• An amnesty is provided for in EU provisions as a mechanism for the 
extinction of criminal liability (specifically, in the European arrest warrant 
mechanism). 
• The Court of Justice has confirmed that an amnesty is capable of resulting in 
the extinction of criminal liability regardless of the seriousness of the offences and 
the motive it pursues. 
• The direct effect of a directive cannot be relied on as against an individual. 
• The recitals of a directive are of interpretative value only. 
• The lack of clarity of the concept of terrorism in Directive 2017/541 should 
not lead to the supplementation of that concept by provisions of the national 
criminal code. In that connection, an examination must be carried out of whether 
the EU legislation requires that the seriousness of the offence is the primary factor 
for the purposes of its inclusion in the definition of terrorism. 
• The LOA is more compatible with Directive 2017/541 than the transposition 
of that directive, since the Spanish legislation does not reflect the restrictions 
relating to the potentiality and increased harmfulness of conduct. 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
15 
• There is no evidence of any lack of legal certainty. 
• It is not appropriate to submit a request for a preliminary ruling because it 
would be asking the Court of Justice to interpret a national law, when it is well 
known that references for a preliminary ruling are only possible for the purpose of 
interpreting EU law. 
• Directive 2017/541 does not define terrorism, referring to terrorist offences 
where, given their nature or context, such offences may seriously damage a 
country or an international organisation. In that connection, the LOA is aligned 
with the EU legislation, in that it excludes from the amnesty any acts which have 
intentionally caused serious breaches of human rights. 
• It is apparent from the indictments, that the acts at issue cannot be classified 
as terrorist acts (because, given their nature or context, they seriously intimidate a 
population or compel a government or an international organisation to perform or 
abstain from performing any act). 
• In its judgment of 9 February 2006, La Cascina and Others (C-226/04 and 
C-228/04, EU:C:2006:94), the Court endorsed the existence of an amnesty in a 
harmonised field, specifically stating that the tax amnesty concerned was not 
contrary to the requirement to be in compliance with the tax obligations imposed 
by Community legislation on the coordination of the procurement procedures for 
the award of public service contracts. 
• The definition of terrorist group in Directive 2017/541 has no connection to 
the criminal organisation or group which is alleged in the indictments. 
• In order to determine whether Directive 2017/541 is applicable, the starting 
point must be the facts set out in the indictments, while the legal assessment 
carried out by the prosecuting parties is incorrect and should not be taken into 
account. 
• Those facts cannot be classified as acts falling within the scope of terrorism 
and they are not caught by the exceptions set out in the LOA which preclude the 
application of the amnesty. 
• Directive 2017/541 does not provide that criminal penalties are to be 
imposed for the possession of explosives precursors. In that connection, the 
indictments do not describe the possession of any explosives. 
• As regards destruction, Directive 2017/541 provides that this must be 
extensive, while it is for the Spanish legislature to decide the punishment for 
destruction that is not extensive, from which it follows that its amnesty is not 
contrary to Union law. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
16  
• The indictments do not refer to acts which may be considered acts initiating 
that type of destruction. Indeed, such acts come rather within the category of 
punishable preparatory acts. 
• If a request is made for a preliminary ruling, it must be asked whether, in 
accordance with Directive 2017/541, Member States are required to classify as a 
criminal offence the mere possession of explosives precursors, acts preparatory to 
acts of terrorism, destruction which is not extensive and does not affect life, and 
the membership of a terrorist organisation of an organisation which cannot be 
linked, directly or indirectly, to the execution of a violent act. 
9 The people’s prosecution states: 
• The LOA is contrary to the principle of separation of powers. 
• The LOA breaches the principle of equal treatment because it applies only to 
specified persons, in a specified geographical area and having a specified 
ideology, and it is also incompatible with the principle of legal certainty. 
• The LOA infringes the right to effective legal protection and the principles 
of primacy and effectiveness. 
• The LOA infringes Directive 2017/1371 on the fight against fraud to the 
Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Introductory considerations 
10 As indicated above, the referring court has questions regarding the compatibility 
of the LOA with European Union law. In that respect, it should be recalled that, to 
date, two other requests for a preliminary ruling have been submitted in relation to 
the LOA (registered under numbers C-523/24 and C-587/24). 
11 Firstly, it should be noted that the acts set out in the indictments are covered by 
the LOA, that is, they fall within its objective and temporal scope. Moreover, the 
acts are not caught by the exceptions laid down in the LOA, that is to say, the 
cases in which, under that Law, those acts will not be amnestied. 
12 Article 2(c) of the LOA lays down the following additional condition in order for 
acts relating to terrorism to be excluded from application of the amnesty: those 
acts must ‘have intentionally caused serious breaches of human rights, in 
particular those governed by Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention for the 
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by international 
humanitarian law.’ In that regard, the accounts of the facts in the indictments do 
not state that the acts, classified as terrorist acts by the prosecuting parties, 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
17 
intentionally caused serious breaches of human rights. Accordingly, since that 
additional condition is not met, the exclusion is inoperative. 
13 In addition, the acts fall within the scope of Directive 2017/541, and, for that 
purpose, in relation to all the offences in the indictments, a comparative analysis 
must be carried out of the provisions of Directive 2017/541, the facts set out in the 
indictment and the Criminal Code. In the instant case, the offences charged are 
included in the offences described in the Spanish legislation transposing that 
directive, specifically Article 571 et seq. of the Criminal Code, as will be 
explained in detail below. In that respect, the starting point will be the facts set out 
in the indictments but solely for the purpose of making this reference for a 
preliminary ruling, while the referring court cannot be deemed to have accepted or 
endorsed those facts as proven. The arguments of the defendants to the effect that 
it is the facts rather than the legal assessments made by the prosecuting parties 
which are decisive as regards the application of Directive 2017/541 to the instant 
case are thus accepted. 
The first question 
The definition of terrorist group 
14 Article 2(3) of Directive 2017/541 defines the term ‘terrorist group’. In addition, 
Article 3 of the directive provides that ‘Member States shall take the necessary 
measures to ensure that the following intentional acts, as defined as offences 
under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a 
country or an international organisation, are defined as terrorist offences where 
committed with one of the aims listed in paragraph 2.’ Those aims are ‘a) 
seriously intimidating a population; b) unduly compelling a government or an 
international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; c) 
seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, 
economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.’ 
15 As regards two of the organisations of which the defendants are accused of 
membership, namely the Comité de Defensa de la República (Committee for the 
Defence of the Republic; ‘CDR’) and the Equipo de Respuesta Táctica (Tactical 
Response Team; ‘ERT’), the indictment lodged by the Ministerio Fiscal sets out 
the following claims verbatim: 
– in relation to the CDR: 
• ‘It organised many and varied acts and actions throughout the territory of 
Catalonia, some of the CDR’s actions being criminal.’ 
• ‘The groups in question, which are composed of multiple individuals, have 
the objective of materially subverting the constitutional order by means of a 
planned and organised strategy. That intention is demonstrated by the refusal to 
follow the channels legally established by the rule of law for political and social 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
18  
claims and the direct call for disobedience and the perpetration of acts, typically 
tumultuous in nature, which seek to impose a situation of acts committed by 
means of taking control of the territory and the disruption of strategic, economic 
and supply sectors.’ 
– in relation to the ERT: 
• ‘The so-called Equipo de Respuesta Táctica is a cell of which the defendants 
are members but it is a small group of individuals from different CDRs, who are 
clearly highly radicalised.’ 
• All the defendants agree with radical activism to achieve independence; their 
ultimate aim as an organisation was to achieve Catalan independence, using for 
that purpose violence in its fullest sense, thereby forcing the institutions by 
coercion to concede de facto the secession of Catalonia from the rest of Spain. 
The members of the ERT actively participated in carrying out some of the most 
forceful acts carried out by the CDRs to date.’ 
16 The indictment lodged by the people’s prosecution is similarly worded: 
– in relation to the CDRs: 
• ‘The CDRs are, above all, a criminal pro-independence organisation, given 
that, in pursuit of their objective of the secession of Catalonia, they organised 
criminal and terrorist actions on Catalan territory. They maintained over time a 
stable, permanent organisation, formed and supported by a combination of groups 
and individuals with specifically defined roles and functions who are connected 
through a hierarchy and coordinate with one another, demonstrating unity in the 
direction and execution of their actions with the aim of committing crimes.’ 
– in relation to the ERT: 
• ‘The Equipo de Respuesta Táctica emerged for the purpose of obtaining 
independence for Catalonia by whatever means, including violent means, as they 
themselves stated. It is a small, clandestine committee having centralised 
management and carrying out reactionary and subversive activism, willing to 
perform, cooperate in and facilitate actions categorised as more radical or 
sensitive. They organised themselves hierarchically, each member performing a 
number of tasks which were exactly specified, while some members were 
responsible for supervising the others.’ 
• ‘The targets for their rage were sensitive infrastructure and also persons 
belonging to the State law enforcement authorities. They committed attacks 
against extremely important public institutions, such as the occupation of town or 
city halls and the attempted occupation of the Catalan Parliament.’ 
17 The Criminal Code defines ‘terrorist organisation or group’ in Article 571, in 
conjunction with Article 573. The referring court therefore takes the view that the 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
19 
facts described in the indictments come within the definitions of ‘terrorist group’ 
in Directive 2017/541 and ‘terrorist organisation’ in the Criminal Code. 
The classification as a criminal offence of directing a terrorist group and 
participating in the activities of a terrorist group 
18 Article 4 of Directive 2017/541 provides that Member States are to take the 
necessary measures to ensure that directing a terrorist group and participating in 
the activities of a terrorist group, when committed intentionally, are punishable as 
a criminal offence. 
19 The indictment lodged by the Ministerio Fiscal makes the following claims 
regarding the defendants’ participation in the ERT: 
• ‘As members of the ERT, the defendants participated in the creation and 
development of CECORs (coordination centres) for the actions of the CDRs, 
taking on assignments received from a so-called Catalan national intelligence 
agency for the provision of the necessary logistical infrastructure with a view to 
committing an act in which an attempt was made to occupy the Catalan 
Parliament and subsequently defend it, all in view of the technical and human 
capabilities of that group.’ 
• ‘As members of the ERT, the defendants went beyond activities within the 
respective CDRs and formed a parallel terrorist organisation, which was 
clandestine and stable and which had the aim of carrying out violent acts or 
attacks against pre-selected targets using explosives and/or incendiary substances 
manufactured in two clandestine laboratories which the organisation had set up in 
two private residences.’ 
20 The people’s prosecution states as follows: 
• ‘Within the criminal organisation of the CDRs, each of the defendants in 
these proceedings was affiliated to a local committee, carrying out actions within 
the local area or town, and they were also members of what is known as the 
Equipo de Respuesta Táctica (ERT).’ 
21 The Criminal Code defines that conduct as membership of a terrorist organisation 
in Article 572. The referring court takes the view that the facts referred to, as 
described in the indictments, come within the concept of participation in a terrorist 
group for the purposes of Directive 2017/541 and belonging to or participating in 
a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the Criminal Code. 
The criminal penalty imposed for directing and participating in the activities of a 
terrorist group and the effect of application of the LOA 
22 In accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2017/541, Member States must take the 
necessary measures to ensure that the offence of participating in a terrorist group 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
20  
is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. Those 
penalties are provided for in Article 572 of the Criminal Code. 
23 In accordance with Article 3 of the LOA, the amnesty declared under that Law 
makes it impossible to prosecute those actions and results in the extinction of the 
defendants’ criminal liability. 
24 In that respect, having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the referring 
court asks whether Directive 2017/541 must be interpreted as precluding the LOA, 
which prohibits the prosecution of and, as the case may be, the imposition of 
criminal penalties on those who actively participate in the activities of a terrorist 
group, thereby extinguishing their criminal liability. 
The second to fourth questions 
The ground for exclusion of application of the LOA and its compatibility with 
European Union law 
25 It is important to point out that, in relation to the offence of participating in a 
terrorist group, Directive 2017/541 includes a specific provision on punishment, 
which makes anyone participating in such a group criminally liable irrespective of 
whether another terrorist offence was actually committed. That provision is, 
specifically, Article 13 of that directive. 
26 In that respect, the LOA appears to exclude, as a general rule, its application to the 
terrorist offences provided for in Directive 2017/541, which, a priori, may not be 
amnestied. However, it makes that exclusion conditional on the fulfilment of an 
additional condition, which is not laid down in Directive 2017/541 (‘and which 
also have intentionally caused serious breaches of human rights’). 
27 The question therefore arises of whether the Spanish legislature is entitled to insert 
additional conditions for establishing criminal liability for participation in a 
terrorist group when the directive explicitly provides that, in order for that offence 
to be punishable, it is not necessary for a terrorist offence to have actually been 
committed. 
28 Further, that ground for exclusion is based on the premiss that there are two types 
of terrorism: one which seriously breaches human rights (which cannot be 
amnestied) and another where such a breach of human rights does not occur 
(which can be amnestied, the offences prosecuted in the instant case being, the 
defendants and the Ministerio Fiscal claim, such offences). Accordingly, it is not a 
question of accepting that there are aggravated and minor forms of terrorist 
offences but rather of concluding that, under Directive 2017/541, there are 
punishable acts which do not breach human rights. 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
21 
29 That distinction which the LOA makes in relation to the criminal offences covered 
by Directive 2017/541 may conflict with that directive, particularly in the light of 
recitals 2, 8 and 9 thereof. 
30 In conclusion, the referring court takes the view that limiting the exclusion of the 
amnesty to the most serious breaches of human rights in matters relating to 
terrorism, by creating the concept of ‘low intensity’ terrorism’, may be 
incompatible with Union law, since Directive 2017/541 does not differentiate 
between terrorist offences which breach human rights and others which do not. 
The principle of legal certainty 
31 As regards the words ‘have intentionally caused serious breaches of human rights, 
in particular those governed by Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention for 
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and by international 
humanitarian law’, questions also arise in relation to the principle of legal 
certainty, which is enshrined in Union law. 
32 The principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations form 
part of the European Union legal system and must be respected by Member States 
in the exercise of their powers and in the areas governed by European Union law. 
In that connection, reference can be made to the judgments of the Court of Justice 
of 16 February 2022, Poland v Parliament and Council (C-157/21, 
EU:C:2022:98, paragraph 319), of 30 April 2020, Hecta Viticol (C-184/19, 
EU:C:2020:337, paragraphs 52 and 53); and of 16 February 2022, Hungary v 
Parliament and Council (C-156/21, EU:C:2022:97, paragraph 223). The principle 
of legal certainty is also enshrined in Article 9(3) of the Spanish Constitution. 
33 The referring court takes the view that Article 2(c) of the LOA is vitiated by a 
serious lack of clarity and vagueness, since it fails to set out clearly and to 
describe in its articles which acts are capable of constituting offences of that kind 
or serious breaches of human rights. It does not state clearly and unambiguously 
what the limit is for determining the seriousness of a breach of the right to life or 
physical integrity in order for that breach to be treated as capable or not capable of 
being amnestied, a lack of clarity which may directly affect the principle of legal 
certainty. 
34 In short, the system concerned is one in which the cases to be excluded from the 
power to impose penalties are not defined exhaustively (vagueness or no 
provision). Thus, it is not possible to conclude that legal certainty existed at the 
legislative stage or at the application stage of the Law. 
35 Moreover, the LOA may also entail the sending of a message for the future (the 
general principle of prevention in criminal law) to the effect that terrorist offences 
may be pardoned if the intentions behind those offences are aligned with the 
political interests of whoever enacts the amnesty law. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
22  
36 In that connection, the report of the Venice Commission of 18 March 2024 
(paragraphs 75, 76 and 77) states that the exceptional nature of an amnesty does 
not exempt it from compliance with the basic standards of any law; on the 
contrary, it is especially important that those standards are complied with because 
they concern criminal liability in a highly sensitive area. Clarity, determinacy, 
accessibility and foreseeability are requirements of criminal law and, the Venice 
Commission states, they apply to legislation which introduces crimes and 
penalties and to legislation which decriminalises crimes and penalties. Although 
amnesties may be adopted through different types of parliamentary or 
governmental acts, it is essential that their effects are formulated with sufficient 
precision and clarity so as to make them foreseeable as to the personal, substantive 
and temporal scope of the amnesty. 
37 As regards the foregoing, the report of the Consejo General del Poder Judicial 
(General Council of the Judiciary, Spain) of 21 March 2024 (paragraph 167) 
stated, in connection with the bill which led to the LOA, that, ‘notwithstanding the 
importance of ensuring the correct delimitation of the objective scope for the 
purpose of compliance with the principle of legal certainty, as has been indicated, 
the first subparagraph of Article 1 of the text submitted for report is ambiguously 
worded, which makes it difficult to understand and precludes compliance with the 
minimum legal certainty required, while problems with its future practical 
application are clearly foreseeable.’ 
38 In that connection, reference must be made to paragraph 167, which sets out in 
detail all the aspects in which the legislation is liable to undermine the principle of 
legal certainty, such as, for example, the arbitrary nature of the start date of the 
period to which the amnesty may apply, the strange differentiation between acts 
associated with the referendums and acts associated with the independence 
process, the use of ambiguous and vague terms such as ‘framework’ or ‘context’, 
the fact that the amnesty is not linked to the characteristics of the offence but 
rather to the perpetrator’s subjective intention which is very difficult to verify, the 
inclusion of clauses and counter-clauses which appear only to seek the impunity 
of defined individuals, the existence of inapplicable, contradictory or obscure 
provisions, and difficulties defining the time period. 
The fifth question 
The offence of manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of 
explosives for terrorist purposes 
39 Article 3(1(f) of Directive 2017/541 provides that the manufacture, possession, 
acquisition, transport, supply or use of explosives for terrorist purposes is to be 
classified as an offence. 
40 In that regard, the Ministerio Fiscal states in its indictment, in connection with a 
number of the defendants: 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
23 
• ‘The defendants took all the necessary steps to actually prepare and 
manufacture incendiary, deflagrating and explosive substances; to that end, they 
acquired the necessary knowledge (including with the advice of experts), 
purchased the substances or the components needed to manufacture them 
(occasionally using false identities or third parties), having at least two 
laboratories where they could carry out those actions, situated in private 
residences linked to JRS and ACB, together with the synthesis of the substances 
concerned and the performance of tests to determine the effectiveness of those 
substances. 
41 For its part, the indictment lodged by the people’s prosecution states in connection 
with, for example, ACB: 
• ‘As a member of the CDR in Mollet del Vallès, ACB played an important 
role in the Production Group, preparing and manufacturing explosive and/or 
incendiary substances, an activity which he carried out in his own home, which 
was designated as one of the two clandestine laboratories that the criminal 
organisation had.’ 
• ‘The activities were carried out in the garage of the residence, where the 
substances needed to manufacture explosives were deposited and stored. Not only 
was it used for storage but it was also where they performed experiments using 
those incendiary, deflagrating and explosive substances and other devices.’ 
42 In relation to another of the defendants, GTA, that indictment states: 
• ‘Also a member of the CDR in Mollet del Vallès, GTA was particularly 
active in the field of making incendiary, deflagrating and explosive substances. 
GTA was also a member of the Protection Group in which, together with J.R and 
A.C, GTA was responsible for making explosives and substances such as 
thermite. Those operations were carried out in the clandestine laboratory at A.C.’s 
home.’ 
43 In accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2017/541, Member States must take the 
necessary measures to ensure that the offence of manufacturing, possessing, 
acquiring, transporting, supplying or using explosives is punishable by effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. Those penalties are defined and 
punished by Article 574 of the Criminal Code. 
44 Again, the effect of applying the LOA to that offence would be to prevent its 
prosecution and to exempt the defendants from criminal liability. 
45 That being the case, the referring court asks whether Directive 2017/541 must be 
interpreted as precluding the LOA, which prohibits the prosecution and, as the 
case may be, punishment of persons who manufacture, possess, acquire, transport, 
supply or use explosives for terrorist purposes, thereby extinguishing their 
criminal liability. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
24  
The sixth question 
The offence of attempting to cause destruction for terrorist purposes 
46 This offence of which the defendants are accused is provided for in 
Article 3(1)(d), in conjunction with Article 14, of Directive 2017/541. 
47 In connection with the offence of attempting to cause destruction for terrorist 
purposes, the indictments lodged by the Ministerio Fiscal and the people’s 
prosecution state as follows: 
• ‘At the time it was disbanded, the terrorist organisation with which these 
proceedings are concerned had already gathered precise information about its 
possible targets. JR and other members of the organisation had carried out 
preparatory acts consisting of reconnaissance of targets, surveillance and 
monitoring of police stations, taking photographs and videos of predetermined 
targets. The photographs of the selected targets show certain aspects of the police 
stations, such as entrances, surveillance cameras, locations of (inter alia) 
electricity pylons, police officers and number plates of police vehicles. Listed 
below are the targets in respect of which evidence has been obtained, on a variety 
of image storage media, that the group intended to carry out some kind of act or 
attack: 
– Barcelona Naval Command 
– Gobierno Militar building, Barcelona 
– Delegación de Gobierno de Barcelona (Regional Government Office, 
Barcelona) 
– Fiscalía del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Prosecutor’s 
Office of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia) 
– Headquarters of the Comandancia de la Guardia Civil de la provincia 
de Barcelona (Civil Guard Command, province of Barcelona) 
– Members, vehicles and facilities of the law enforcement authorities 
– Electricity pylons 
– Motorway facilities, toll stations 
– Catalan Parliament 
Particularly striking is the reconnaissance of the perimeter of the Civil Guard 
Command barracks in Barcelona.’ 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
25 
• ‘Through conversations obtained from the messaging application SIGNAL, 
involving, inter alia, the defendants ACB, GTA, EGC, RJDL and SPG, in which, 
through that secure application, they planned a number of violent acts against the 
following facilities or institutions: 
– Catalan Parliament 
– Regional ministries of the interior and justice of the Regional 
Government of Catalonia 
– Civil Guard barracks 
– Amazon logistics centre.’ 
• ‘Furthermore, during a search of their homes, a number of maps of 
communication routes and railway stations were seized.’ 
48 The Criminal Code classifies those acts as a criminal offence in Article 573bis, in 
conjunction with Articles 346, 16 and 62. In that connection, under Article 15 of 
Directive 2017/541, Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure 
that the offence of destruction is punishable by effective, proportionate and 
dissuasive criminal penalties. 
49 Again, the effect of applying the LOA to that offence of attempted destruction 
would be to prevent its prosecution and to exempt the defendants from criminal 
liability. 
50 That being so, the referring court asks whether Directive 2017/541 must be 
interpreted as precluding the LOA, which prohibits the prosecution of and, as the 
case may be, the imposition of criminal penalties on (thereby extinguishing their 
criminal liability) those who, for the purpose of terrorism, commence violent acts 
by setting targets for extensive destruction on the grounds that they are 
representative of being contrary to the ideology of the terrorist group, by the 
performance of surveillance or by the photographic documentation of public 
places to destroy – in particular, premises of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, State 
law enforcement authorities, autonomous institutions, and police vehicles – all 
with a view to ensuring the full execution of the violent plan devised by the 
terrorist group, with the aim of successfully carrying out that destruction. 
The seventh question 
51 The legal basis for Directive 2017/541 is Article 83(1) TFEU. That provision 
permits the European Parliament and the Council, by means of directives adopted 
in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, to establish minimum rules 
concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in certain areas of 
crime, which includes an explicit reference to terrorism. In matters relating to the 
area of freedom, security and justice (which logically covers terrorism), 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
26  
competence is shared between the Member States and the Union, as is clear from 
Article 4(2) TFEU. 
52 Where, in the exercise of a competence, the Union regulates a particular matter by 
means of directives, as it did with Directive 2017/541, that matter is anchored to 
the competence of the Union in accordance with its minimum standards and in 
line with common objectives and purposes which have been laid down by the EU 
legislature and which the national legislature must respect going forward. 
53 If a national parliament infringes an EU provision derived from the exercise of 
that shared competence, it will be in breach of the principles of cooperation in 
good faith and primacy (see, in connection with the latter principle, judgments of 
15 July 1964, Costa (6/64, EU:C:1964:66) and, more recently, of 22 February 
2022, RS (Effects of the judgments of a constitutional court), C-430/21, 
EU:C:2022:99, paragraphs 50, 51 and 53). 
54 That being so, the referring court asks whether the principle of primacy of 
European Union law, which is enshrined in the case-law of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union, and the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in 
Article 4(3) TEU preclude the LOA, which exempts from criminal liability 
through the amnesty persons accused of conduct capable of falling within the 
scope of Directive 2017/541. 
The eighth question 
55 The principle of equal treatment is a general principle of the European Union, of 
which the principle of non-discrimination constitutes a specific expression, both 
principles being laid down in the Charter (Articles 20 and 21). That principle is 
also laid down in Article 2 TEU. 
56 Article 1 of the LOA, which defines the objective scope of application of the 
amnesty, uses a temporal criterion (between 1 November 2011 and 13 November 
2023), a specific context (the referendums held in Catalonia on 9 November 2014 
and 1 October 2017, their preparation and consequences) and a general context 
(actions carried out in relation to the so-called Catalan independence process, even 
if those acts are not related to those referendums or were carried out after those 
referendums took place). That context is also referred to in the preamble to the 
LOA, which sets out lengthy arguments justifying the amnesty in relation to the 
Catalan independence process. 
57 According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the principle of equal 
treatment requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and 
that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment 
is objectively justified (see, for example, judgment of 24 February 2022, Glavna 
direktsia Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto, C-262/20, 
EU:C:2022:117 (‘judgment in C-262/20’), paragraph 58). In that respect, a 
difference in treatment is justified if it is based on an objective and reasonable 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
27 
criterion, that is, if the difference relates to a legally permitted aim pursued by the 
legislation in question, and it is proportionate to the aim pursued (see, to that 
effect, judgment in C-262/20, paragraph 73). 
58 Accordingly, as regards equal treatment, the starting point must be the existence 
of comparable situations in the light of all the available elements, in particular the 
subject matter and purpose of the provision and the principles and objectives of 
the material scope within which it falls. It is necessary to examine whether there is 
a general interest objective and whether the measure is necessary and 
proportionate. That EU law test must also be applied, mutatis mutandis, in an 
examination of the compliance with the principle of equal treatment of national 
measures implementing European Union law (judgment of 26 September 2013, 
IBV & Cie, C-195/12, EU:C:2013:598, paragraph 53). 
59 As has been stated, the differentiating factor of the treatment for punishment 
purposes of terrorist offences committed within the timeframe indicated – which 
continue to be covered by the Criminal Code – and those which may be amnestied 
under the LOA concerns the context; in other words, offences which were 
committed in the context of the so-called Catalan independence process are 
amnestied. 
60 To put it another way, the criterion relates to the subjective element of the offence, 
that is, the motive pursued by the specific acts with which these proceedings are 
concerned (membership of the CDRs and the ERT; the possession, transport and 
manufacture of explosives; the identification of targets and the planning of 
extensive acts against those targets, such as the Civil Guard barracks, the Catalan 
Parliament, and the other targets specified in relation to the offence of attempted 
destruction). 
61 That criterion may conflict with freedom of ideology. The perpetrators of terrorist 
offences or offences related to terrorism are not amnestied if the acts committed in 
the timeframe concerned were in pursuit of a different ideology (jihadists or 
separatists from any other autonomous community, for example). 
62 The Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain), in its 
order of 24 July 2024 (ES:TS:2024:10306A) referring a question of 
unconstitutionality to the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court, Spain) in 
connection with Article 1 of the LOA, expressed it perfectly clearly: 
‘5.2.- In this court’s view, it is quite clear that for the different treatment which the 
[LOA] provides for those who committed offences for the purpose of 
encouraging, by one means or another, the secessionist process, as opposed to 
those who committed the same offences motivated by different aims, to appear 
justified in constitutional terms, it is necessary, first, that that treatment is not 
based exclusively on the opinion, on the political ideology, of either, particularly 
since that different treatment entails consequences directly linked to the right to 
personal freedom. Some individuals are exempted from any criminal liability 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-666/24 
 
28  
while others must serve their sentences. The basis of comparison is as simple as 
that provided in these proceedings. The defendants must be amnestied for the 
simple reason that the stones and cobbles which they threw at the Girona courts 
building (also endangering the lives and integrity of individuals) were thrown in 
protest at the judgment of this Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) which 
convicted some of the leaders of the coup d’etat referred to. If their motives had 
been different (for example, if their protest had been against the, in their view, 
lack of severity of that judgment; or in favour of self-determination for the 
Sahrawi people; against evictions; or in favour of or against illegal immigration), 
they would have to serve their sentences. It is only their (political) opinion, that 
(political) opinion, which determines their eligibility for the amnesty.’ 
63 The case-law of the Court of Justice (see judgment in Case C-262/20, 
paragraph 78) does not consider that reliance on political or social factors (on 
which the preamble to the LOA repeatedly relies) is sufficient to justify the 
general interest of a measure. 
64 In short, uncertainties exist regarding whether that ideological motive (obtaining 
Catalan independence) as justification for the amnesty may constitute 
discriminatory treatment, contrary to European Union law, against those who, in 
the same timeframe, carried out similar acts based on other ideologies; this affects 
not only the principle of equal treatment but also the right of European citizens to 
ideological freedom, without there being – due to the political nature of the 
ground on which the amnesty is based – any justification for the discriminatory 
treatment for reasons in the general interest. 
The ninth question 
65 In connection with that ideology, which is the basis for the amnesty applicable to 
criminal offences, it cannot be denied that that justifying context which leads to 
the exemption from criminal liability (the aim of obtaining the independence of 
the Autonomous Community of Catalonia from the rest of Spain) involves the 
secession of part of the territory of the European Union, which runs counter to one 
of the essential functions of the Member States, namely, that of ensuring their 
territorial integrity in accordance with Article 4(2) TEU. 
66 Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 TFEU provide that citizens of the Union have the right to 
move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. In that 
connection, they are entitled to retain the confidence and legal certainty that, 
within the territory which now constitutes the territory of the Union, they will be 
permitted to exercise such rights, unless these are amended by methods provided 
for in law. 
67 The amnesty for criminal acts aimed at obtaining the secession of part of Spanish 
territory (and, therefore, part of the territory of the Union) may affect the exercise 
today of the right of EU citizens to freedom of movement and residence in 
Catalonia. The amnesty may have the effect of creating favourable conditions 
ASOCIACIÓN CATALANA DE VÍCTIMAS DE ORGANIZACIONES TERRORISTAS (ACVOT) 
 
29 
(because of the exemption from criminal liability) for the materialisation, 
repetition or spreading of such acts seeking the territorial and legal secession of 
part of Spanish national territory (and therefore the Union). The impunity of 
terrorist acts motivated by a separatist ideology affects today the European area of 
freedom, security and justice and the legitimate expectation of European citizens 
to freely exercise their rights (of residence and movement) in the territory of the 
Union (specifically, in the part of that territory whose secession is sought). 
68 Accordingly, it is necessary to ask the Court of Justice whether the amnesty, as 
legally framed by the LOA, is compatible with the right of free movement and 
residence in the territory of the Union or whether it undermines confidence in the 
legitimate exercise of that right in Catalonia. It is also necessary to ask whether it 
is compatible with the essential function of Member States of ensuring their 
territorial integrity. 
Incompatibility of the LOA with other acts of European Union law 
69 It remains to point out that the LOA seriously breaches the firm measures taken by 
the European Union as a programmatic course of action, in the light of the 
legislative instruments enacted for that purpose, and not only through Directive 
2017/541 and the legal act which preceded it but also through other provisions in 
pursuit of that aim, such as provisions intended to facilitate the exchange of 
information between Member States or the identification of possible perpetrators 
of criminal acts. 
70 In that connection, it is appropriate to refer to Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger 
name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and 
prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, Directive (EU) 2015/849 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of 
the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist 
financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, and, lastly, 
Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
31 May 2024 establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and 
Countering the Financing of Terrorism and amending Regulations (EU) 
No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010.