MADRID, 29 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) María Ángeles Carmona, Carmen Llombart and José Antonio Ballesteros have questioned this Wednesday that the decision on the admission to processing of the extension of the amparo requested by the judge of the National Court investigating to Democratic Tsunami in a “context of serious generalized questioning of judicial work”.
The three members have cast a dissenting vote, reported by Europa Press, on the decision adopted by the Permanent Commission this Wednesday, which consisted of postponing that admission to include a few words from ERC deputy Gabriel Rufián against magistrate Manuel García Castellón .
It is worth remembering that the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6 initially went to the CGPJ asking for protection due to statements made by the then ‘number two’ of Justice, Tonxtu Rodríguez, in a radio interview and others by the spokesperson for the Government of the Generalitat of Catalonia. , Patricia Plaja, in a press conference.
The CGPJ admitted that initial request for processing considering that “there is sufficient basis to admit the request for processing.” Once the allegations from Rodríguez and Plaja have been received, the matter will be submitted again to the Permanent Commission for the adoption of a final resolution.
The governing body of the judges clarified this Wednesday that the processing of this first protection will continue “until the moment in which a resolution must be issued, which must also be postponed until the Second Chamber of the high court rules on its jurisdiction to process that procedure.”
However, regarding the extension of protection relating to Rufián, the Permanent Commission has chosen to postpone the decision on admission to processing pending the Supreme Court.
The members who have cast the dissenting vote assure, however, that “there is no new fact that allows suspending the decision of the amparo procedure already initiated, or the admission for processing of the requested extension until the moment in which the Court of Appeals Criminal Court of the Supreme Court rules on the reasoned statement submitted by García Castellón and the competent body is determined.”
“This is so because, even if the Investigative Court of the National Court had ceased to hear the matter, this would not mean there would be a sudden loss of object, because this would be equivalent to affirming, without any legal basis, that the protection is only can be granted within a certain period of time, even though the damage or interference in judicial independence had been consummated and persisted over time,” they maintain.
In his opinion, “it will happen even less if the Investigative Court continues to be competent, as it is, as long as the Supreme Court does not admit its jurisdiction.” “Competence that, moreover, would not necessarily have to be extended to the entire case as there are also non-certified parties involved, in accordance with the consolidated jurisprudence of the Second Chamber,” he adds.
Along these lines, they emphasize that “it cannot be maintained that there is a legal cause for suspension of the administrative protection file.” “The agreement with which we disagree does not cite any legal precept on which to support said suspension. We understand therefore that the agreement should have consisted, in the first place, of admitting the extension of the protection requested by García Castellón in order, otherwise, not to contradict the admission of the initial claim,” they argue.
Finally, they consider that “the processing of the file already started should have continued, instead of adopting a suspension subject, in turn, to a suspensive period.” “All this,” they conclude, “in a context of serious widespread questioning of judicial work.”
