The upcoming plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg is set to discuss whether an amnesty law will be accepted, a decision that has sparked debate across political groups. In recent negotiations, the Socialist Party and its allies in Together and CKD have positioned Pedro Sánchez as head of government, a move that many observers say could affect the rule of law in Spain. The issue has been placed on the Strasbourg agenda by groups including the Popular Party, Citizens, and Vox, signaling a strong cross-party interest in how Spain handles the matter at the national level and how it aligns with European standards.
A key figure will participate in the debate, with the discussion expected to begin at 14:00 and run for a little over an hour. Didier Reynders, the Justice Commissioner, has urged clarity from Madrid after receiving a draft of the law prior to its registration with the Congress of Deputies. In recent days, he acknowledged receiving numerous inquiries from citizens and organizations about the law and has pressed for more information to understand its full contents before taking a formal stance.
Reynders has previously indicated that he would not appear for testimony on this matter, stating that his office is awaiting a legal assessment from Commission services before issuing an official position. He noted that his interest lies in understanding the law to determine whether it respects EU norms, rather than prejudging the outcome.
Meanwhile, Reynders held discussions with Félix Bolaños, the Minister of the Presidency who is also serving as Minister of Justice. In a phone interview, Bolaños argued that the issue is a matter of national policy rather than something that would conflict with European values. He emphasized that the matter falls within the framework of the Spanish constitutional order and does not undermine the integrity of EU governance.
As the draft legislation circulated among member states, initial assessments from multiple Brussels-based sources, reported to Europa Press, suggested a priority focus on protecting the European Union’s financial interests. There was no explicit reference in those early reactions to terms such as laws of the rule of law or a judicial conflict, given that the law remains framed primarily within national jurisdiction and has not yet triggered any automatic EU responses.
Ahead of the debate, the European People’s Party signaled that it would urge the commissioner to stay vigilant when the bill is discussed in parliament, noting that the scope of the measure remains broad and open to changes proposed by pro-independence factions. The party warned that changes could shift the balance in ways that require careful scrutiny.
Similar warnings came from Ciudadanos, who stressed that the discussion is not about challenging the legitimacy of the newly formed Sánchez government, which holds a parliamentary majority. Instead, the focus is on examining potential risks to the rule of law and on the potential erosion of the separation of powers that could be entailed by the amnesty proposal. The core concern is whether national reforms align with fundamental EU principles and how they affect governance across the Union.
The overall tenor of the moment is one of cautious scrutiny. European lawmakers appear intent on ensuring that any national measure aligns with commitments to judicial independence, accountability, and the separation of powers. The ongoing dialogue reflects a broader European concern about how national policies interact with shared EU standards, particularly in areas touching on justice and fundamental rights. Observers note that the process remains in a sensitive phase, with opinions from Brussels likely to shape, at least in part, how the law is interpreted and implemented at the national level.
As the plenary session approaches, questions persist about the potential implications for Spain’s constitutional order and the EU’s response if the law alters core checks and balances. Analysts point out that the discussion will not only concern Spain but also set a precedent for how future national reforms with wide political implications are assessed within the Union. The debate is framed as a test of how well EU institutions can respond to national policy choices while upholding the values of rule of law, democratic governance, and the separation of powers that underpin the European project. The outcome remains uncertain, but the process underscores the continued importance of transparent deliberation, thorough legal scrutiny, and prudent political leadership in navigating sensitive constitutional questions.