Was Spain's amnesty law condemned by 16 countries and the EU?

A wave of viral claims has brought Spain’s 2023 amnesty law, which sparked controversy when introduced, back into the spotlight.

A series of posts initially posted in 2023, claiming that 16 European countries issued a statement against Spain’s amnesty law, have resurfaced. Other resurfaced claims announced the EU itself labelled Spain’s system for appointing the attorney general a "democratic anomaly."

However, both claims are false. Fact-checkers confirmed that no such statement was made, and the European Commission’s Rule of Law report never used such wording. It did note concerns raised by outside stakeholders.

What is Spain's amnesty law?

Spain’s amnesty law, which was approved in 2023, granted legal pardons to politicians, activists, and officials involved in the Catalan independence process and related protests since 2012.

Its goal was supposedly to reduce political tensions and pave the way for dialogue between the Spanish government and Catalan separatist groups.

Supporters argued it was a step toward reconciliation and stability. However, critics said it undermined the rule of law, created unequal treatment in judicial processes, and was used as a political bargaining tool to secure parliamentary support for Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

One false claim stated that 16 European countries had issued a joint statement against this law, demanding that EU funds be suspended. Versions of the rumour also alleged that Sánchez had ordered Spanish media to suppress the matter.

The story spread across Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms, usually in the same wording.

But these posts never detailed which 16 countries supposedly signed the statement, never linked to any official document, and never cited reliable news sources.

The uniform repetition of the same text suggested coordinated copy-paste sharing rather than credible reporting. In fact, the claim resurfaced multiple times between late 2023 and 2025, gaining traction whenever the amnesty law appeared in public debate.

But this claim turned out to be false. Spain’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told fact-checkers at Maldita.es that it had never received such a statement and had no record of it.

The press office of the Council of the European Union also confirmed (both in 2023 and again in 2025) that no such request had ever been submitted.

Further checks on the official websites and social media accounts of the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council revealed no trace of the alleged statement.

Nor did Spanish or international media report anything of the sort. This absence of sources and the direct denials from official institutions provide strong evidence that the claim about 16 countries taking action against Spain was fabricated.

The second false claim stated that the European Commission’s Rule of Law reports had declared Spain’s system for appointing the attorney general a “democratic anomaly."

This phrase was publicly used by Cuca Gamarra, of the opposition party Partido Popular. She suggested that European institutions themselves had formally condemned Spain’s system as undemocratic, thereby adding international weight to domestic opposition.

This claim gained traction in political debates and media coverage, but was not backed up by evidence. The Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report does discuss Spain’s prosecutor system, especially reforms to the statute of the attorney general, but it does not use the term "democratic anomaly" anywhere.

Instead, it records that some "interested parties", such as associations, NGOs, or other observers, had raised concerns about risks to independence from government influence.

In other words, the report summarised external opinions rather than issuing a formal EU judgment.

The European Commission’s press office also confirmed that the report never described Spain’s appointment system as a "democratic anomaly." What the report does recommend is that Spain continue strengthening the independence of the attorney general, though it does not require separating the mandate from that of the government.