Judgment Sanchez i Picanyol and Others v. Spain - Political rights of three Catalan elected officials not infringed during their pre-trial detention

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 261 (2025)   06.11.2025   Political rights of three Catalan elected officials not infringed   during their pre-trial detention   The case of Sanchez i Picanyol and Others v. Spain (applications nos. 25608/20, 27250/20 and   46481/20) concerned the applicants’ pre-trial detention and alleged restrictions on their political   rights under the Convention. Their pre-trial detention had been ordered by the Spanish courts in the   wake of the demonstrations organised in Barcelona on 20 and 21 September 2017 and the   unconstitutional referendum of 1 October 2017.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in this case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been:   No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on   Human Rights in respect of all three applicants.   The Court held, in particular, that the national authorities had weighed up the various interests at   stake in a manner that could not be characterised as arbitrary, and without interfering with the free   expression of the opinion of the people. It found, inter alia, that the applicants’ pre-trial detention,   the rejection of their applications for temporary release and the first applicant’s suspension from his   office as a member of parliament – once the indictment had become final – had not been   incompatible with the very essence of their right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be elected and   to sit in Parliament.   No violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention taken in   conjunction with Articles 5 and/or 3 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of all three applicants.   The Court took the view that the various considerations raised by the applicants did not form a   sufficiently coherent whole for it to find that their pre-trial detention had pursued a purpose not   prescribed by the Convention.   No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention in respect of the   second applicant.   The Court found that the evidence before it did not support the conclusion that the order of   23 March 2018 placing the applicant in pre-trial detention had been arbitrary and had been made   for the sole purpose of preventing him from taking up the office of President of the Generalitat. It   further held that the time taken to deal with his amparo appeal had not entailed an infringement of   his right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of his detention.   Principal facts   At the relevant time, the first applicant, Jordi Sànchez i Picanyol, was Chair of Assemblea Nacional   Catalana (“the ANC”), a civil association for the promotion of Catalan independence. The second   applicant, Jordi Turull i Negre, was Minister of the Presidency and spokesperson for the Catalan   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Autonomous Government (“the Generalitat”). The third applicant, Oriol Junqueras Vies, was Vice-   President of the Generalitat.   In September 2017 the Generalitat and the Catalan Parliament, with the support of a number of   civil-law associations, initiated a procedure to secede from the Spanish State, which involved   organising a referendum on self-determination. To that end, the Catalan Parliament passed two laws   which were suspended by the Constitutional Court a few days later and subsequently declared   unconstitutional.   In spite of this, the referendum was called for 1 October 2017. As a result of the organisation of the   referendum, the public prosecutor’s office lodged a complaint against the President of the   Generalitat and other members of the Catalan Government, including the second and third   applicants.   Subsequently, an investigating judge ordered a search of the headquarters of the Generalitat’s   Department of the Vice-Presidency and of Economic Affairs in order to gather evidence that might   establish any criminal liability in connection with the organisation of the referendum.   Then, on 20 and 21 September 2017 – the dates scheduled for the search – some 40,000 people,   answering the call of civil-law associations (Omnium Cultural and the ANC), gathered in front of the   building in order to prevent the State security forces from entering. The blockade lasted more than   24 hours and gave rise to altercations, causing material damage in excess of 100,000 euros.   The referendum, although unconstitutional, was ultimately held on 1 October 2017, with roughly   40% of officially registered voters participating. The Catalan Government announced the result of   the vote, indicating that the secessionist proposal had won with over 90% of the votes cast.   A few days later the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention: the first applicant on 16 October   2017 and the two others on 2 November 2017. The second applicant was subsequently released on   bail on 4 December 2017, then taken back into custody on 23 March 2018, although he was due to   stand as a candidate for the office of President of the Generalitat at the investiture session the   following day.   On 27 October 2017 the Catalan Parliament officially and unilaterally declared Catalonia’s   independence. However, that declaration was suspended by the Constitutional Court and the Senate   adopted measures the same day resulting in the dismissal of the Catalan Government and the calling   of Catalan parliamentary elections for 21 December 2017. During their pre-trial detention, the   applicants stood for election and were elected.   On 21 March 2018 the investigating judge placed all three applicants under formal investigation for   insubordination and the second and third applicants for misappropriation of funds. Subsequently, on   9 July 2018, once the indictment had become final, the investigating judge informed the Catalan   Parliament that all the applicants had been suspended from public office.   During their pre-trial detention the applicants made several applications for leave to attend sittings   of parliament and the investiture session for the Presidency of the Generalitat (first and second   applicants) but their applications were dismissed.   On 14 October 2019 all three applicants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from nine to   thirteen years (for sedition, among other offences), banned from public office and disqualified from   standing for election for a period equal to their prison sentence. The applicants’ convictions form the   subject matter of separate applications to the Court.   On 23 June 2021 they were released after being granted a pardon.   2 Complaints   All the applicants relied on Article 3 (right to free elections) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and   Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5 (right to liberty and   security) and/or Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, complaining, in particular, as follows.   The first applicant alleged that he had been prevented from taking part in the election campaign on   account of his pre-trial detention; that he had not been allowed to take part in ordinary   parliamentary activities after the elections; that he had not been allowed to attend the plenary   sessions of parliament for his investiture as a candidate for the office of President of the Generalitat;   and that he had been suspended from his office as a member of parliament.   The second applicant complained that the authorities had decided to remand him in custody the day   before he was due to attend the investiture session for the sole purpose of preventing him from   becoming President of the Generalitat. He submitted that the measure had been disproportionate in   view of his political rights. Under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complained of his pre-   trial detention and the time taken to deal with his amparo appeal.   The third applicant complained that his application for leave to attend the constitutive plenary   sessions of the Catalan Parliament during his pre-trial detention had been rejected.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 June, 30 June and   14 October 2020, respectively. The Court found it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single   judgment.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic), President,   María Elósegui (Spain),   Gilberto Felici (San Marino),   Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),   Diana Sârcu (the Republic of Moldova),   Mykola Gnatovskyy (Ukraine),   Vahe Grigoryan (Armenia),   and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (first applicant)   The Court noted that the applicant had been placed in pre-trial detention on account of the risk that   he would abscond, reoffend and conceal or destroy evidence. It saw no evidence of unlawfulness or   arbitrariness in the factual and legal basis for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In order to   guarantee the stability and effectiveness of a democratic system, the State might be required to take   specific measures to protect itself. In the present case, the circumstances had been particularly   unusual and serious, as the purpose of the proceedings had mainly been to prosecute highly   consequential acts which had occurred only a year earlier.   As to the rejection of the applicant’s applications for temporary release, the Court found that the   seriousness of the offence in question and the social and political context at the relevant time were   factors which undoubtedly had to be taken into account in assessing the proportionality of the   restrictions, as well as the short period of time which had elapsed between the alleged offences and   3 the rejection of the applicant’s applications. It observed that the reasons given by the domestic   courts provided detailed justification for the need to avert the risk of the applicant’s absconding and   reoffending. It also noted that the courts had taken care to limit any interference with the   applicant’s rights of representation by affording him the opportunity to vote by proxy during   parliamentary sittings so as to preserve the essential content of the right to sit in Parliament. This   measure had ensured respect for the distribution of votes in Parliament as decided by the citizens   when exercising their right to vote.   Regarding the rejection of the applicant’s applications for leave to attend the investiture session – as   a candidate for the office of President of the Generalitat – the Court found that, in view of the   events of 20 and 21 September 2017 and the extent of the applicant’s responsibility for them, it had   not been unreasonable to consider that his transfer to the seat of Parliament had been liable to   caused fresh incidents of a certain intensity.   As to the applicant’s automatic suspension from his office as a member of parliament when his   indictment had become final (on 9 July 2018), the Court noted that the suspension – provided for in   Article 384 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure – had been imposed following individualised   review of the applicant’s situation by two courts. It also noted that this was a temporary measure,   which could be extended only so long as the conditions for the applicant’s indictment and pre-trial   detention were met. Moreover, the provision in question had already been in force when the   applicant had stood for election and neither he nor his constituents had been surprised by its   enforcement.   In conclusion, the Court found that the domestic authorities had weighed up the various interests at   stake in a manner that could not be characterised as arbitrary, and without interfering with the free   expression of the opinion of the people. The first applicant’s pre-trial detention, the rejection of his   applications for temporary release and his suspension from his office as a member of parliament had   thus not been incompatible with the very essence of his right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be   elected and to sit in Parliament. There had therefore been no violation of that provision.   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (second applicant)   The Court noted that the applicant had been placed in pre-trial detention on the basis of a   reasonable suspicion in support of the charges against him and after taking into account the proven   risk that he might abscond and reoffend.   It found that the judicial authorities had effectively taken into account the fact that the applicant   was not only a member of parliament but also a candidate for the office of President of the   Generalitat, whose performance of his parliamentary duties called for a high level of protection.   It noted that the reasons why the imposition of an alternative measure to detention would have   been insufficient in the applicant’s particular case had been explained by the domestic courts, which   had provided specific and individualised reasoning in that regard.   It observed that, in reviewing the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the domestic courts had weighed   up the issues from the standpoint of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 when ruling on the lawfulness of his   initial and continued pre-trial detention.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (third applicant)   The Court pointed out that the above considerations concerning the first and second applicants also   applied to the third applicant and were sufficient for it to conclude that there had been no violation   of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   4 Article 5 § 1 (second applicant)   The Court observed that the charges against the second applicant had specifically concerned   unconstitutional, secessionist acts committed in his capacity as an elected representative and that   the courts had justified his placement in pre-trial detention on the ground that there was a risk that   he would reoffend. It found that the evidence before it did not support the conclusion that the order   placing the applicant in pre-trial detention had been arbitrary and had been made for the sole   purpose of preventing him from taking up the office of President of the Generalitat. It considered   that the domestic courts had provided “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for their finding that the   pre-trial detention ordered on 23 March 2018 was based on a reasonable suspicion that the   applicant had committed a criminal offence and that there had been reasonable grounds to believe   that his pre-trial detention was necessary to ensure his presence at the trial and prevent him from   reoffending, so as to preserve the constitutional order. The second applicant’s pre-trial detention   had therefore not entailed a breach of Article 5 § 1 (c).   Article 5 § 4 (second applicant)   Having regard, firstly, to the fact that the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention had been   thoroughly reviewed by the Supreme Court; secondly, to the limited scope of the Constitutional   Court’s review in the context of an amparo appeal (the Constitutional Court examined only whether   the decisions ordering the initial detention and its continuation had been compatible with the   fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution); and, lastly, to the complexity and crucial   importance of the legal issues raised by the cases brought before the Spanish Supreme Court   regarding the Catalan independence process, the Court considered that there had been no violation   of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the present case.   Article 18 (all applicants)   The applicants submitted that the decisions taken during their pre-trial detention had been aimed at   silencing them as representatives of a political alternative and intimidating them into abandoning   their political activities.   In the Court’s view, the aim of preventing acts contrary to the constitutional and democratic order   could not be regarded as “political” in the applicants’ sense. Absent any other argument or specific   evidence (in the legal sense) capable of justifying the applicants’ fears, the domestic political context   to which they referred could not, by itself, prove that the purpose of their pre-trial detention had   been to hinder their participation in political life rather than to ensure that they were brought to   justice.   It considered that the applicants had failed to establish convincingly that there had been an ulterior   purpose in respect of them. The situation of the political parties of which the applicants were   members throughout the judicial proceedings in question supported this interpretation: not only   had their activities not been restricted but they had been able to field their lists of candidates for the   elections of 21 December 2017 and, after the vote, a coalition of the various pro-independence   forces had put forward several candidates for the office of President of the Generalitat (including the   first and second applicants, who had been in pre-trial detention).   In the Court’s view, the various considerations raised by the applicants did not form a sufficiently   coherent whole for it to find that their pre-trial detention had pursued a purpose not prescribed by   the Convention. There had therefore been no violation of Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction   with Article 5 and/or Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   The judgment is available only in French.   5 This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   6