The case, Costa i Rosselló and Others v. Spain, centred on the Constitutional Court of Spain’s decisions to block debates and resolutions in the Catalan Parliament related to Catalan independence and questioning the Spanish monarchy.

The court’s actions included suspending and annulling resolutions, and initiating criminal proceedings against some members for disobedience.

The 32 applicants, led by Josep Costa i Rosselló, argued that these actions infringed their rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

They also made complaints under Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition on discrimination).

In today’s ruling, the ECtHR unanimously rejected all of the complaints, finding that the Constitutional Court’s rulings were “proportionate and necessary” to protect the constitutional order.

The actions were taken in line with Spanish law and the applicants had been “specifically warned” about the consequences of disregarding them, including potential criminal liability, the court noted.

Regarding the criminal proceedings, the ECtHR acknowledged that the first applicant, Josep Costa i Rosselló, had been acquitted of disobedience charges, but noted that the proceedings were still ongoing due to an appeal from the public prosecutor’s office.

The court found that the initiation of criminal proceedings was based on Article 410 of the Spanish Criminal Code, which criminalises disobedience of judicial orders by public officials.

It concluded that the legal basis for the proceedings was foreseeable and that the measures taken were proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the constitutional order.

Because the proceedings are still ongoing, the claim under Article 6 “is premature and hence based on speculation about future events”, the court said.

The court also dismissed the applicants’ claims of discrimination, stating that they had “failed to substantiate how they have been unjustifiably treated differently to other persons placed in a similar situation”. The court found no evidence that the applicants were targeted due to their political ideology.

In its ruling, the ECtHR emphasised that “public debate, inside or outside public institutions, on political projects for the amendment of the form of the State enjoys unrestricted freedom under the Spanish Constitution” but noted that such debates must respect constitutional procedures.

The court unanimously declared the applications inadmissible, concluding that the complaints were “manifestly ill-founded”.