The Ministry of Justice has finally agreed to process the request for help launched two months ago by the Supreme Court in view of the “unsustainable situation” it is suffering due to the blockade of the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), whose renewal is pending for more than four years. The department headed by Pilar Llop has decided to approve the creation of 15 legal positions for the two jurisdictional chambers that have the highest number of vacancies, according to ministerial sources confirmed to elDiario.es. Neither the governing body of the judges nor the Supreme Court has, for the moment, the “formal response” from the Ministry, both spokespersons affirm.
The refusal of the progressive members to resign en bloc sentences the renewal of the Judiciary
Further
The High Court demanded last February that the technical cabinet be reinforced with judges from other courts who could draft sentences of a repetitive nature or with consolidated jurisprudence in order to alleviate the situation of the body, which has a quarter of its staff without covering. The CGPJ echoed this claim and made a formal request. The law of the judiciary establishes that “exceptionally” and “for conjunctural and duly justified reasons” Justice may temporarily assign, with a maximum limit of one year, an additional number of members to the service of the technical cabinet. This body assists judges in the admission of cases and collaborates with the studies and reports that are requested.
In the court as a whole, the unfilled positions for judges amount to 20 out of 79, which represents 25% of its judges. A percentage that will exceed 30% at the end of the year, when the vacancies will rise to 24 if the blockade of the organ continues. These positions cannot be filled because, since March 2021, the law prevents the CGPJ from making appointments to the judicial leadership when, as is the case now, it is in office. Until then, an expired body and with a correlation of forces that has nothing to do with the current parliamentary reality had made 74 appointments to key positions.
The partners of the Government defended that behind this reform was the need to end a legal vacuum, since until then the only competence that the CGPJ in office could not exercise was to appoint a new president. But behind its approval was also the attempt to increase pressure for the PP to agree to renew the body after several failed attempts. The blockade has been maintained despite the legal change and the consequences of this paralysis are already being seen in the courts after two years of legal impossibility of filling vacancies for judges.
The Supreme Court estimate is that this year some 1,230 fewer sentences will be handed down in the two chambers most affected by vacancies. There will be 570 fewer in Litigation, which settles, among others, lawsuits that affect the Government; and 660 fewer in the Social area, which deals mainly with matters of a labor nature. These are the two rooms that the High Court asked to reinforce with eight and seven legal positions “preferably covered” by magistrates from those jurisdictions on secondment and with the remuneration of a coordinating lawyer.
The Supreme Court requested that these magistrates do support work in the decision phase, where the most relevant bottleneck is generated. The intention is that they prepare, under the supervision of the speakers, the drafts of sentences of a repetitive nature or with stable and consolidated jurisprudence. In these two rooms there are 15 unfilled places. It is a “critical” situation, according to a report from the director of the technical cabinet of the Supreme Court made at the request of the CGPJ.
The procedure to choose these lawyers will begin when the “formal” communication arrives from the Ministry of Justice, which is the one who finances these positions. It will be then when the Governing Chamber of the Supreme Court can call for the positions and choose the candidates of its choice, provided they meet its requirements. From there will come a list of 15 applicants who will have to have the approval of the permanent commission of the CGPJ, the hard core of the body made up of four conservative and three progressive members. The legal sources consulted maintain that these are highly coveted positions, especially among judges, since they allow them to expand their curriculum and establish highly relevant contacts for future appointments.
The Supreme Court’s decision will raise the bill for blocking the organ. According to the department headed by Pilar Llop, since 2021 1.3 million euros have already been invested in reinforcing the Supreme Court. Mainly, due to the incorporation of 17 lawyers to the technical office. In the aforementioned report, the director of the technical office of the High Court maintained that the proposal to provide these 15 new posts does not imply any additional economic cost above the ordinary budget forecasts, since they would fill the gap left by unfilled posts. that they have not earned the remuneration that corresponds to them. He also insisted that the remuneration of these lawyers is “clearly lower” than that of the court magistrates.
Monographic plenary session without agreement
The majority conservative block of the CGPJ celebrates the decision of Justice to attend to the claim of the Supreme Court. The members elected in their day at the proposal of the PP have been especially belligerent with the norm that prevents them from making appointments to functions and that the PP and Vox challenged before the Constitutional Court. The guarantee court has not yet deliberated on this appeal.
The response to the problems that the paralysis of the body is causing in the judicial leadership has focused part of the debate among the members of the body in recent months. A monographic plenary session on this matter was even approved, which ended without any agreement due to the clash between the members. 14 of the 18 directors showed their willingness to carry out some initiative that would show the effects of the paralysis, but there was no agreement on what or how.
The permanent commission proposed to urge Congress and the Senate to renew the institution and, if this does not occur, to demand the modification of the law on the Judiciary so that the “attribution” of making appointments would be returned to them. His text also insisted that this reform is generating “very serious damage” to the judicial protection of citizens.
That initiative only received seven votes (four progressives and three conservatives). That vote showed the distancing in the conservative bloc. Five of its members – those who tend to be most critical of the government – described it as “useless”, “disappointing” and “insufficient” and said that it meant adopting a “complacency attitude” towards those who “undermine the foundations of the rule of law ”, alluding to the parties that promoted the reform that prevents the acting CGPJ from renewing the judicial leadership.
It is the same group that led the blockade of the renewal of the Constitutional Court last autumn, delaying the change of majorities to a progressive one, or that sought a new clash with the Government as a result of the reform of the crime of sedition. His latest moves are related to the law of ‘only yes is yes’. Precisely this week, provisional data on the revision of sentences for sexual offenders in application of this rule has been leaked again: a total of 943 reduced sentences, according to figures that are still provisional and that do not include information from four autonomous courts and four others. provincial hearings.
