They defend that the Plenary Session should have considered the candidate suitable for the position because he meets the requirements established by law.

MADRID, 4 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) –

The president and five other members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) have defended this Monday that Álvaro García Ortiz meets the merits and requirements to be attorney general of the State and that the Plenary Session of the governing body of the judges “should have been limited to the verification of their suitability” as established by law and should not have taken into consideration other issues, such as their policy of discretionary appointments and the harsh ruling of the Supreme Court (TS) on Dolores Delgado, their criterion with the law of ‘only yes is yes ‘ or his “inactivity” to defend the prosecutors of the ‘procés’ from ‘lawfare’ accusations.

This is stated in the dissenting vote cast by the progressive member Roser Bach, to which the interim president Vicente Guilarte and the members of the progressive wing Mar Cabrejas, Álvaro Cuesta, Clara Martínez de Careaga and Pilar Sepúlveda have joined. In this way, the signatories show their opposition to the decision adopted by the majority of the CGPJ Plenary to consider García Ortiz unsuitable for the position of attorney general.

In the text, collected by Europa Press, the members recall that the Plenary Session of the governing body of the judges has reported on six occasions on proposals made by the Council of Ministers for the appointment of the State Attorney General.

In this sense, they specify that, “on all these occasions”, the Plenary has maintained a “constant criterion of limited judgment of the suitability of the candidates proposed by the Council of Ministers, limiting the examination to compliance with the requirements and legally established merits”.

As an example, the signatories give an example that “in the plenary session of October 27, 2016, in the debate on the appointment of Manuel Maza Martín, the scope of the report on the suitability of the candidate was addressed and the position of the members was rejected. “that advocated a broad examination of the professional career and merits of the proposed person, and the aforementioned members cast a dissenting vote supporting their position.”

Thus, the dissenting members emphasize that “for obvious reasons of coherence” the examination of García Ortiz’s proposal “should have been limited to verifying its suitability in the terms set forth and, consequently, the Plenary of the CGPJ should have reported in the sense that the person proposed by the Council of Ministers for the position of State Attorney General meets the merits and requirements required to be appointed to the aforementioned position.”

It is worth remembering that last week, the CGPJ rejected García Ortiz’s continuity as attorney general, considering that he has made “spurious” use of his powers, highlighting his policy of discretionary appointments and the harsh Supreme Court ruling on Dolores Delgado; that he has imposed erroneous criteria, as with the law of ‘only yes means yes’; and his “inactivity” to defend the prosecutors of the ‘procés’ from the ‘lawfare’ accusations.