In a high-tidelity turn of events, Carles Puigdemont crossed into Spanish territory without being detained, according to an order issued by Judge Pablo Llarena to the Mossos d’Esquadra. The former president addressed a crowd on Passeig de Lluís Companys for five minutes, then signaled that it was unlikely he would be seen again soon. The moment underscored a tense legal and political standoff that has stretched across years, and observers noted how the scene appeared to blur the lines between judicial directives and political theater.
Yet, as it seemed Puigdemont might address the parliament itself, the moment quickly faded. Within the hemicycle, whispers circulated that Puigdemont had slipped away rather than presented himself to the Valle de Parlament’s proceedings. The rapid drift from a planned address to speculation about escape added a new layer to a long-running saga.
Questions arose about whether Judge Llarena had authorized the former president and member of parliament to give a speech before supporters gathered on Passeig de Lluís Companys, a detail that became a flashpoint in discussions about jurisdiction and enforcement. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court reportedly offered a firm stance to El Periódico, clarifying legal boundaries and the role of police deployment in this evolving case.
According to those close to the proceedings, Llarena did not control every element of Puigdemont’s detention plan, nor did he dictate the operational specifics of the police apparatus. The Mossos d’Esquadra reportedly held a detention order, and the judge’s signature reflected the framework that empowered the regional police to act under that directive, a situation that sparked debate about who holds ultimate responsibility for the details of enforcement.
As the record stands, apart from the updated order dated July 1 within the context of the amnesty rejection ruling, the authority over the detention arrangement seemingly rested with the Mossos. Police sources described a choice for a discreet operation, a tactic that fuelled impressions that Puigdemont had no intention of surrendering. In this light, observers viewed the episode as a strategic maneuver within a long-running political crisis rather than a straightforward arrest scenario.
Looking back seven years, the incident echoes the atmosphere of October 27, 2017, when there was no detention order or criminal charge against Puigdemont, yet today the situation has evolved to permit a very different set of legal and logistical circumstances. The shift has, for some, transformed what might have been a simple arrest into a broader narrative about accountability, sovereignty, and the limits of judicial power in contemporary politics.
Judicial sources have indicated that Puigdemont is expected to vote electronically, with further notes suggesting that the Mossos d’Esquadra have him located and intend to detain him if necessary. These statements, reported in the wake of the latest developments, contribute to a picture of ongoing legal action intertwined with political calculation, prompting continued scrutiny from within the Spanish judiciary and the political community alike.
Overall, the unfolding events highlight the delicate balance between judicial enforcement and political expression in a highly charged environment. The evolving interpretation of detention orders, the role of regional police, and the strategic timing of public appearances remain at the heart of a debate that spans legal theory and real-world consequences. The situation continues to attract attention from observers who seek to understand not only the immediate events, but also the broader implications for national unity, regional autonomy, and the rule of law in a polarized landscape.
— End of current coverage. Citations: Reporters note the concerns of the Supreme Court and the statements attributed to police sources, with attribution to the relevant court channels and news organizations as corroborated sources.