The Government changed the law in March “guaranteeing that the CGPJ is not paralyzed” and now wants his resignation

Related news

The law that last March deprived the General Council of the Judiciary of one of its constitutional powers – to make appointments to high judicial positions – while in office referred to the need to “guarantee the normal functioning of the organ” and to ensure “that there is no paralysis” in their activity.

Less than six months later, however, the Government encourages the resignation en bloc of the members of the governing body of the judges, who have been in office since December 2018, with the thesis that this would serve to force the PP to renew it.

A massive dismissal of the Council would not only affect the CGPJ itself but also would paralyze basic activities of the Administration of Justice, putting its operation at risk.

The absence of the Standing Committee, the rest of the committees and the plenary session of the CGPJ would prevent making regulated appointments (those that are produced by objective criteria of seniority), which would mean that positions could not be filled vacancies in any Court, Hearing or Superior Court. Transfer competitions would be paralyzed and new judges from the Judicial School could not be assigned destinations.

Nor could reinforcements be approved to help collapsed organs. The training of the judges would be blocked. There would be no sick leave and those already granted could not be extended, so judges who were ill or undergoing medical treatment would have to rejoin.

Plans inspection judicial bodies, approved by the plenary session, would be suspended. A period of disciplinary impunity would be opened, since the commission that sanctions judges would not exist.

The Executive itself would be affected, since none of the draft laws that require the mandatory report of the CGPJ could continue its processing.

Sources from the governing body of the Judiciary maintain that the Government was “very aware” of the repercussion that the activity of the CGPJ has on the functioning of the Administration of Justice. “That’s why the pressure unfolding for us to resign“, they criticize.

The last reform

The preamble to the reform of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power carried out in March considers the General Council of the Judicial Power “a key piece in the institutional design of our State of Law “.

The rule deemed it necessary “to limit the decisions taken by an outgoing Council, whose members have exceeded the constitutional term of office” and prohibits it from making discretionary appointments. The acting CGPJ cannot elect new presidents of the Chamber or magistrates of the Supreme Court. Nor to presidents of the Superior Courts of Justice, Provincial Courts or National Court, among others.

“On the contrary,” adds the reform, “those powers that are necessary to guarantee normal operation of the body and do not imply an interference in the legitimate attributions of the incoming Council are expressly included in the legal regime that this regulation endows the Council in functions “.

“It is guaranteed in this way that there is no paralysis in its operation“, it justified.

According to the law, given that the CGPJ is not a jurisdictional body (“which could not see its activity paralyzed or suspend any of its attributions”), “it is possible to separate the powers of the General Council of the Judicial Power in functions that are essential for the government and proper functioning of courts and courts of those others that, on the contrary, make up a bundle of competences and attributions that must legitimately correspond to the incoming or renewed Council and not to the outgoing one “.

TC resource

The reform is being challenged before the Constitutional Court and has been criticized within the CGPJ, which prevented from reporting on a rule that affected one of their essential competencies.

The President of the Supreme Court and the Council referred to this, Charles Lesmes, during his opening speech of the judicial course last day 6.

Lesmes said that the legislative amendment of March “has aggravated the situation”. He explained that, although during the last six months the Council has tried to continue developing its work normally, “the truth is that it has not been able to fulfill one of the essential functions assigned to it, such as making appointments to government positions and magistrates of the Supreme Court, which places the affected judicial bodies and especially the high court in a very difficult situation. “

He mentioned, in this regard, that there are already 11 vacancies for magistrates that are unfilled in the Supreme Court (13% of its staff), “not to mention many others in the presidencies of various courts that have been occurring. “.

According to the data collected by EL ESPAÑOL, in addition to the vacancies in the Supreme Court, between now and the end of the year, the term of a total of 30 judicial positions will end. Six of them are presidents of the Superior Courts of Justice.

Lesmes complained that the CGPJ had not been heard by legislators before approving the amendment. “Given the importance that this reform has for the body to which the Constitution entrusts the guarantee of judicial independence, during the parliamentary process the Council asked to be able to issue its opinion – as is required in all bills that affect its organization and operation- and there was also an interest in obtaining a report from the European Commission for Democracy through Law, the so-called Venice Commission, as well as hearing from all the agents affected, especially the judicial associations, being all these requests neglected“, lament.

He also contradicted the argument put forward as a justification for the change in the Organic Law of the Judiciary. “The urgency of this reform and its own content have been based on an alleged loss of parliamentary confidence in our institution, as occurs with the Government in office, ignoring that The Council enjoys, by constitutional will, full autonomy with respect to the other powers public, without the involvement of any political dependency of the Cortes Generales, “he said.

Thus, “the justification for the necessary renewal of the Council does not result from the change in the composition of the Chambers, as some maintain, but exclusively from the end of the term of the mandate established in the Constitution.”

Reference-www.elespanol.com

Leave a Comment