Carles Puigdemont has entered Spanish territory without being detained, according to the order issued by Judge Pablo Llarena to the Mossos d’Esquadra. The former president addressed the crowd on Passeig de Lluís Companys for about five minutes, and his farewell suggested that it was unclear when he might be seen again. The scene felt as if it paused time, a moment that left onlookers with a mix of resolve and uncertainty, as if politics itself had stepped outside the usual channels to pose a direct question about accountability and procedure.
But as it seemed Puigdemont would then address the Parliament, the moment dissolved into rumor. Within the chamber, there circulated reports that Puigdemont had slipped away, bypassing formal channels and leaving colleagues to piece together what had happened. The absence of a clear update from the participants only deepened the intrigue and raised questions about how such events are coordinated and interpreted by lawmakers and the public alike.
Was Judge Llarena authorizing the former president and member of parliament to deliver a speech to supporters in Passeig de Lluís Companys? The query hovered over the proceedings, as observers evaluated whether the judicial authority had granted a permit for such a public appearance or if the event operated outside the scope of formal authorization. The Supremo’s Second Chamber provided a pointed perspective to El Periódico, underscoring practical constraints rather than symbolic gestures: the judge does not control the detainment apparatus, and the specifics of police deployment are not dictated at the judge’s desk. Mossos have a detainment order in place, a clear fact that anchors the legal framework around the situation.
Consequently, beyond the updated order issued on July 1 in its ruling denying amnesty for Puigdemont, Judge Llarena has delegated the detainment arrangements to the Mossos. In that sense, the operational responsibility lies with the regional police, rather than a direct judicial directive. Police sources indicated a decision to carry out a discreet operation, aiming to avoid sensational confrontation, yet the impression remains that Puigdemont had no real intention to surrender. This nuance highlights the tension between political theater and legal processes, and how strategic choices by political actors can influence public perception and the narrative surrounding legal actions.
As events unfolded, seven years later—recalling October 27, 2017 when there was no detainer against him and no criminal complaint—Puigdemont appears to be turning a perceived tragedy into what some observers describe as a farce, a dramatic reframing of the narrative that has followed him since the initial confrontation with Spanish authorities. While the specifics of the latest developments stay bound to judicial and police communications, the overarching storyline remains one of a high-stakes political contest where legal instruments and public sentiment intersect, often in highly charged, tightly watched moments.
Judicial sources indicate that Puigdemont is expected to vote remotely and add that Mossos officers have him tracked and plan to detain him. The situation continues to unfold against a backdrop of ongoing political debate about the limits of jurisdiction, the reach of judicial authority, and the methods employed to enforce warrants in a highly polarized environment. The public record reflects a careful balancing act: on one side, the insistence on legal processes and the integrity of the detainment system; on the other, the broader political implications of any arrest or public appearance tied to a movement that has deeply shaped recent Catalan history.