Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declared inadmissible the applications filed by Members of the Parliament of Catalonia who challenged the Spanish Constitutional Court’s orders preventing the Bureau of the Parliament from accepting draft resolutions debating Catalonia’s right to self-determination and criticizing the monarchy. The Members of the Parliament argued that these measures violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)  (right to free elections) and articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR (freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association). The Court held that the measures taken by Spanish authorities were foreseeable, had a clear legal basis, pursued legitimate aims, and were proportionate, noting that the resolutions circumvented constitutional channels. The ECtHR observed that the Constitutional Court acted, in extreme circumstances, to protect the Constitution as the guarantor of the territorial integrity of the State.

---

Facts

Between 2015 and 2019, the Parliament of Catalonia adopted several resolutions asserting Catalonia’s right to self-determination and independence. Many of these resolutions were challenged by the Spanish Government and annulled by the Constitutional Court of Spain, which held that they sought to alter the constitutional order outside the procedures for constitutional reform.

Despite those rulings, the Parliament continued to adopt similar resolutions. In July and September 2019, for example, it adopted Resolutions nos. 534/XII and 546/XII, which reaffirmed republican values, criticised the monarchy, rejected decisions of Spanish courts, and asserted the legitimacy of civil and institutional disobedience.

Throughout 2017-2019, the Constitutional Court initiated enforcement proceedings and partially suspended several of the aforementioned resolutions. In October 2019, it warned members of the Bureau of the Parliament, including Vice President J. Costa i Rosselló and Secretary Eusebi Campdepadrós i Pucurull, to refrain from implementing the impugned provisions and from processing initiatives circumventing its judgments, warning them of possible legal and criminal liability.

In November 2019, the Parliament adopted a resolution which explicitly accused the Constitutional Court of “censorship” and asserted that previous resolutions’ suspensions violated “freedom of expression, ideological freedom and political participation”. [para. 46] It further claimed that the Court was interfering with democratic debate and silencing the demands of the Catalan people.

In December 2019, the Constitutional Court specifically annulled parts of Resolutions nos. 534/XII and 546/XII, arguing that the resolutions asserted authority to create an independent State outside constitutional channels. The Constitutional Court reiterated that the Bureau of the Parliament was obliged to comply with its rulings.

Despite warnings, the Bureau accepted new draft resolutions for processing that reiterated criticism of the monarchy and asserted the right to self-determination. The Constitutional Court suspended the processing of those drafts, annulled the Bureau’s decisions, and again personally warned its members they could be individually liable. It also concluded that the resolutions pursued secession outside constitutional mechanisms and described them as attempting an unacceptable de facto route to reform the Constitution by bypassing it.

In March 2021, the High Public Prosecutor of Catalonia filed a criminal complaint against Costa i Rosselló and other members of the Parliament for disobedience in relation to the Bureau’s decisions to admit the contested draft resolutions for processing despite the Constitutional Court’s injunctions. The High Court of Justice of Catalonia declared the complaint admissible and opened criminal proceedings. Appeals and an amparo application lodged by Costa i Rosselló, invoking parliamentary immunity and freedom of expression and political participation, were dismissed. The case proceeded to trial in October 2022. On 15 November 2022, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia acquitted all defendants, finding that disobedience had not been proven.

Despite his acquittal, Costa i Rosselló appealed to the Supreme Court on 24 January 2023 on points of law, requesting the Court to affirm the scope of parliamentary immunity from prosecution. The acquittal was also appealed by the other defendants and by the public prosecutor. As of January 2025, the proceedings were still pending.

Costa i Rosselló and other members of the Catalan Parliament filed different applications and approached the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

---

Decision Overview

The Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights, presided over by Justice Guyomar, declared the applications inadmissible. The main issue before the Court was whether the Constitutional Court’s orders preventing the Bureau of the Parliament of Catalonia from accepting draft resolutions similar to those previously declared unconstitutional, and the subsequent criminal proceedings against Costa i Rosselló for disobedience, led to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to free elections) and articles 10 and 11 of (freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association).

Costa i Rosselló and Campdepadrós i Pucurull argued that the Constitutional Court imposed a blanket prohibition on debating the right to self-determination and criticizing the monarchy, which constituted a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the ECHR. They relied on Forcadell i Lluis and Others v Spain, where the Court held there was an interference with articles 10 and 11 of the Convention due to a similar ex-ante ban on a Catalan Parliament debate.

Additionally, Costa i Rosselló claimed that the criminal prosecution against him—for actions taken as a parliamentarian—unlawfully restricted his mandate and infringed upon his freedoms of expression and assembly. He argued that these measures amounted to impermissible prior restraints and produced a chilling effect on his right to political participation and his freedom of expression and assembly. He further claimed that the measures lacked a legal basis, were unforeseeable, and misused criminal proceedings.

Various other applicants argued that the Constitutional Court’s suspension and annulment of the Bureau’s decisions allowing certain draft resolutions on the Catalan Parliament’s agenda unlawfully restricted their rights. All of them claimed that they had been discriminated against because of their political ideas that were supportive of Catalonia’s independence.

The Government of Spain denied that the decisions of the Constitutional Court or the initiation of criminal proceedings had interfered with the applicants’ political rights or freedoms of expression and assembly. It maintained that the action was lawful under Institutional Law no. 2/1979, pursued legitimate aims such as protecting public order and constitutional authority, and was necessary and proportionate.

Considering that Costa i Rosselló was an elected official, the Court accepted that the Constitutional Court’s orders and the initiation of criminal proceedings against him might be regarded as a limitation on his rights under the Convention. The Court highlighted the interrelated nature of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 10 of the ECHR—and the complementary nature of Articles 10 and 11 in the field of political debate and proceeded to examine the complaints.

However, the ECtHR clarified that interferences under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 must be assessed differently from those under articles 8–11 of the Convention, considering that the former is subject to less stringent standards. Unlike cases that deal with violations of articles 8–11 ECHR, the Court did not apply the tests of “necessity” or “pressing social need”. [para. 125] Instead, it examined “whether there ha[d] been arbitrariness or a lack of proportionality, and whether the restriction ha[d] interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people.” [para. 125] It emphasized that the States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in this regard.

The ECtHR held that the measures challenged by the applicants were lawful, proportionate, and compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, rendering their complaints manifestly ill-founded.

On this point, the Court held that section 92 of Institutional Law no. 2/1979 provided a clear legal basis for the Constitutional Court’s decisions, including the possibility of quashing contradictory decisions and triggering criminal liability for disobedience, and that Article 410 of the Criminal Code of Spain supported the prosecution of public officials’ disobeying judicial decisions. It considered the measures foreseeable and unambiguous, in light of the Constitutional Court’s prior rulings—and repeated personal warnings against Costa i Rosselló.

The ECtHR accepted that the measures pursued legitimate aims, including the protection of the constitutional order and the protection of the rights of others. Subsequently, it analyzed whether the measures were proportionate. The Court reaffirmed that restrictions on political speech under Article 10(2) are very limited, and that in a democratic society, even political ideas challenging the existing order must be allowed to be expressed and debated, provided they do not undermine democracy itself.

However, the Court found that the impugned resolutions knowingly excluded recourse to the constitutional channels designed for the revision of the Spanish Constitution. It observed that the impugned measures were not imposed ex ante, but were adopted only after debates had already taken place and similar resolutions had been passed. The ECtHR accepted that the Constitutional Court acted, in extreme circumstances, to protect the Constitution as the guarantor of the territorial integrity of the State. Thus, it concluded that the impugned measures and ensuing proceedings could not be regarded as “political” measures aimed at preventing Costa i Rosselló from exercising his parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, the Court rejected Costa i Rosselló’s complaints under articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. For the same reasons, it also rejected the identical complaints raised by the remaining applicants as manifestly ill-founded.

---