A divided Judiciary seeks how to deal with politicians' criticism of judges

The waters are low in the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), which this Monday is holding an extraordinary plenary session, forced by the conservative sector of the body, with the announced purpose of responding to the harsh criticism of the judges expressed last week by several parliamentary spokespersons in the debate on the amnesty law in Congress.

In addition, a proposal for change in the permanent commission - the main executive body of the Council - has been placed on the agenda of this plenary session, which does not have the unanimous support of either of the two sectors, conservative and progressive, and which contributes to strain the atmosphere within the CGPJ.

The common denominator of both issues – the defense of the judges who are handling cases related to the

process

and who have been described as “prevaricators” by several parliamentary groups, and the change in the Council's executive – is that they are going to be debated in a an extraordinarily worn-out organ with a lack of representativeness that at this point the members themselves recognize.

In the Council, no one knows how much longer his interim status will last—it has been more than five years since his mandate expired—and the feeling of general fatigue is in all the conversations between the members, who are already only 16 of the initial 20 (or of the 21, if the president is included).

Returning to discuss now in what terms we must respond to interventions such as that of the Junts spokesperson, Míriam Nogueras, appears to some members of the Council - especially from the progressive sector - as a new episode of self-affirmation that runs the risk of generating little credibility.

Nogueras described as “prevaricators” judges such as Manuel García-Castellón or Joaquín Aguirre, who have in their hands the investigations into the Democratic Tsunami cause (in which the riots, some violent, that followed the sentencing of the

process

in 2019) and the

Voloh case (

on the connections of independence leaders with Russian citizens and former diplomats).

In the progressive sector of the Council, it is considered discriminatory to defend some judges and not others.

And the example is given to Judge José Ricardo de Prada, who was not protected recently, when PP senator José Antonio Monago accused him of “

lawfare”

(judicial persecution of a political opponent) in the

Gürtel case

.

The Council considered the protection unnecessary because Monago later apologized and took back his words.

This difficulty when it comes to agreeing on a response to criticism from politicians is now added to the proposal for a change in the permanent commission of the CGPJ when a year has not yet passed since the replacements carried out last July.

The change, proposed by the provisional president, Vicente Guilarte, would consist of replacing the member Pilar Sepúlveda, appointed at the time at the proposal of the PSOE, with the member Enrique Lucas, proposed by the PNV and assigned to the progressive sector.

Lucas defends in statements to EL PAÍS that his candidacy is exclusively due to the fact that he is “the only legal member who has not belonged” to the permanent commission.

The replacement does not have unanimous support in the conservative sector, and is seen with many reservations in the progressive group.

In both blocks there are members who view the changes with suspicion at a time when the desire predominates for the new attempt at dialogue between the Government and the PP to come to fruition, this time led by the EU Commissioner for Justice, Didier. Reynders, to renew the Council.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_