Critics of the Amnesty Law, including various opposition figures and members of the judiciary, maintain that the CJEU ruling does not resolve the fundamental concerns regarding the rule of law in Spain. While the European court found no technical violation of EU directives, skeptics argue that the ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the law’s domestic morality or constitutional validity. The core of the opposition’s argument remains that the amnesty was a transactional political maneuver—a 'self-amnesty'—designed to secure parliamentary votes for Prime Minister Sánchez rather than a genuine effort at national reconciliation.
There is significant concern that the ruling leaves the door open for continued judicial friction. Because the CJEU explicitly stated that the application of the law is a matter for national courts, the battle over whether embezzlement and other charges can be pardoned remains intense. Critics point out that the Supreme Court’s refusal to apply the amnesty to figures like Carles Puigdemont is based on domestic legal interpretations of corruption and public fund misappropriation, which are not necessarily overridden by the European court's narrow focus on EU-specific financial interests. For these observers, the risk remains that the law undermines the principle of equality before the law, potentially creating a precedent where political necessity can override judicial accountability. The political debate is therefore expected to continue, with the focus now shifting to the Constitutional Court's upcoming review.