Troubled waters within the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) after the Government’s decision to promote a legal reform to enable the body to appoint the two magistrates of the Constitutional Court that corresponds to it with the aim of achieving as soon as possible a majority of progressive members in the court of guarantees.
A group of members is looking for an institutional response to be produced this week against the maneuver of the Executive. Specifically, they seek that the measure, which generated widespread indignation in the governing body of the judges, ends up being debated in the plenary session that will be held next Thursday in the Council and with that objective they have sent a document to the president, to which he has had access THE WORLD.
This sector of the CGPJ – nine members of the conservative group sign the document – wants President Carlos Lesmes to include in the plenary session’s agenda the bill that modifies article 570 bis of the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ). A priori, the matter does not appear in the Plenary outline that was distributed yesterday to the members by the presidency.
Specifically, in the document, the Plenary is urged to “request the Congress of Deputies to obtain the report of the General Council of the Judiciary in relation to the proposal for an Organic Law presented by the Socialist parliamentary group for the reform of the Organic Law of the Judiciary in the aspect related to the attributions of this Council in the sense of also fully returning to it the attributions for judicial and governmental-judicial appointments of a discretionary nature. In addition, “the members ask to address the European Commission to report on the Government’s claims.”
On the other hand, in the brief sent to Lesmes, the members of the conservative group maintain that “the court of guarantees is as much a constitutional organ as are the courts and tribunals, served by judges and magistrates who are members of the Judicial Power whose superior, in all orders It is the Supreme Court.”
Currently, the staff of the High Court has been reduced by 20% due to the political blockade on the Council and the reform approved by the PSOE and United We Can that disables the General Council of the Judiciary from making discretionary appointments.
A large sector of the Council feels mistreated by the same Executive that stripped it of its main function more than a year ago – that of making discretionary appointments – to now partially return it “in its own interest.”
On the other hand, yesterday the Governing Chamber of the Supreme Court reacted to the legal reform of the Executive and asked the General Council to convey to the Congress of Deputies and the Senate its “deep concern” that the lack of renewal of the governing body of the judges, together with the legal impossibility of making discretionary appointments, are creating a situation in the last Spanish instance that, if it continues, “will be unsustainable.”
Legal sources explain that this matter was not on the agenda of the Government Chamber either, but it was decided to include it in the question and answer session due to the outrage within the Supreme Court, where they have felt deeply ignored by the executive power.
Conforms to The Trust Project criteria