Considers that “there is sufficient basis” to process García Castellón’s request

The Permanent Commission of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has agreed to process the request for protection made by the judge of the National Court Manuel García Castellón, who requested it in response to the statements made by the Secretary of State for Justice, Tontxu Rodríguez, the which accused the instructor of ‘Tsunami Democratic’ of wanting to influence the amnesty negotiations by directing the investigation against the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont.

The executive body of the CGPJ has made this decision by majority after “the statements made by several political leaders following the order issued on the 6th in which they agreed to continue the processing of preliminary proceedings 85/2019, in which “they investigate the activities of ‘Tsunami Democràtic'”.

Specifically, García Castellón was referring to some statements by the Secretary of State for Justice on a radio and to others by the spokesperson for the Government of the Generalitat of Catalonia, Patricia Plaja, in a press conference. Now, the CGPJ gives the two ten days to present allegations.

It was last November 8 when Rodríguez, in an interview on Radio Popular, ironically pointed out that it was a “coincidence” that García Castellón led the ‘Tsunami’ investigation against Puigdemont and against the general secretary of ERC, Marta Rovira, a few days before. after an agreement was reached with Junts and a few days after an agreement had been reached with ERC.

He also pointed out that the former president of the PP Government José María Aznar “could talk a little about García Castellón.” “What a coincidence that now, when an agreement could be reached to form a Government, they accuse the Catalan leaders! I have no idea if they are right or not, but what a coincidence that it has to be this day. It could have been a a year and a half before or a year and a half after, well no, right in the middle of the negotiations, if that is not influencing…”, he censored.

As for the spokesperson for the Generalitat of Catalonia, on November 7 she stated the following: “Those whose responsibility it is to administer justice, some, not all, seek not only to condition political negotiations but also to punish them, by prevaricating.”

For the CGPJ, “it can be considered ‘ab initio’ that there is sufficient basis to admit the petition for processing.” Once the allegations have been received, the matter will be submitted again to the Permanent Commission for the adoption of a final resolution, as reported by the CGPJ.


The admission for processing has had the support of the interim president of the CGPJ, Vicente Guilarte; the progressive vocalist Roser Bach; and the conservative members José Antonio Ballestero, Ángeles Carmona and Carmen Llombart. For their part, the also progressive members Mar Cabrejas and Pilar Sepúlveda have voted against.

Cabrejas has justified his vote in a writing in which he explains that, in his opinion, in the present case the requirements for the admission of the request for protection to processing are not met, that is, that said statements not only damage the value of the judicial independence, but also influence the judicial decision-making process.

However, he has proposed that the Permanent Commission adopt a declaration stating that the statements brought to the attention of the CGPJ by García Castellón “are inadmissible and must be classified in the fair terms they deserve: an unjustified excess of “criticism of judicial decisions that when they come from public and political officials take on especially serious profiles.”


García Castellón informed the CGPJ in a letter, to which Europa Press had access, that the aforementioned statements “could imply the clear imputation of the commission of a criminal act, judicial prevarication, by attributing to this instructor the issuance of a resolution with the sole “willingness to influence, an extreme completely foreign to the reality of the criminal procedure in which the decision is framed”.

“There is a disturbance in the independence of the instructor to the extent that the person who affirms the above is the head of the Secretary of State for Justice, the body responsible for, among other functions, those of support and cooperation with the Administration of Justice or the promotion of Human Rights within the scope of the Ministry’s powers, or participation in the Ministry’s relations with the governing bodies of the General Council of the Judiciary,” he said.

The judge assured that since he issued that order “there have been various demonstrations regarding said resolution in different conventional or digital media, as well as on social networks.” “It would be a practically impossible task, due to its volume, to analyze the content of everything published. In any case, it will be up to the Security Forces and Corps and the competent bodies, who will be responsible for clarifying, if any, the responsibilities that may arise. “, he concluded.