APM warns that the situation is getting worse every day, while AJFV says it has no hope of improvement
JJpD warns of the danger of “shaking” the institutions and FJI asks to return to the CGPJ its ability to make discretionary appointments
MADRID, 28 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The associations of judges have shown this Friday their concern about the situation that the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is going through after the negotiations between the PP and PSOE were suspended last night to renew the governing body of the judges, which It has been in office since 2018 due to the lack of agreement between both formations to elect the 20 members that correspond to them.
The president of the Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM), María Jesús del Barco, has assured in statements to Europa Press that the situation that the Judiciary is experiencing continues “to get worse every day” that passes without the CGPJ being renewed, that It has been almost four years with the mandate expired.
The spokesman for the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV), Jorge Fernández Vaquero, has told this agency that he no longer harbors “any hope” that the CGPJ will be renewed. And he has influenced that: “We are just as bad as we were in the operational part, but worse institutionally.”
Fernández Vaquero has underlined that the negotiation process between the political formations has been “quite frustrating”. “They were making progress, but the negotiation method was perverse”, he assured after stressing that a “renewal that corresponds to Parliament” has been discussed “in secret”.
Yesterday night, the AJFV spokesman insisted that the negotiations should be held in the Cortes Generales “in a public and transparent manner” to address the profiles of the candidates.
In this context, Fernández Vaquero has stated that from the association they hope that “there will be no collective resignation” in the governing body of the judges. According to him, those who should resign would be the deputies and senators of the parties that have not been able to agree in almost four years to renew the CGPJ.
“They are incapable of fulfilling their function. Let them resign. Let other elections be held so that other deputies and senators come to negotiate the agreement,” he said, while assuring that he has no hope of this happening.
In his opinion, the arguments outlined yesterday by the PP and by the Government are “mere excuses” because the “only thing they are evaluating is their electoral interests” and not the needs of the governing body of the judges.
PP and PSOE had resumed talks to renew the governing body of the judges after, last Sunday, October 9, Carlos Lesmes announced that the next day he would resign as president of the CGPJ and the Supreme Court.
This week the agreement seemed “imminent”, as it had also happened on previous occasions. This time, the PP has decided to leave the table because the Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, has confirmed to the leader of the ‘popular’, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the reform of the crime of sedition, as indicated by the party in a statement.
The PSOE, in its own statement, has accused Núñez Feijóo of “using a new excuse” to break off the negotiations and has accused him of “not resisting” the pressures “from the most reactionary right” which, in his opinion, have been “boycotting” the talks between the two parties.
Fernández Vaquero has lamented that Carlos Lesmes has “gone in vain”. He has assured that his resignation as president of the CGPJ and the Supreme Court “generated a series of movements, but the truth is that this stage has apparently ended.”
Del Barco (APM), for his part, has defended that Lesmes’s resignation has not been in vain and has insisted that he trusts that “everything will be redirected” because “there is no alternative” to this situation, only carrying out The renewal.
For its part, Judges and Judges for Democracy (JJpD) has issued a statement in which it has made public its “stupefaction” at the new delays to renew the CGPJ.
Its spokesperson, Ascensión Martín, and its co-spokesperson, Edmundo Rodríguez Achútegui, have recalled that the Council is a “fundamental institution for the government of the Judiciary” and that its interim situation “directly affects citizens”, because “the courts that have to protect their rights are incomplete”.
In this sense, they have pointed out that “when institutions are shaken in this way, their strength is undermined and their democratic legitimacy is affected.” For this reason, they have requested that “an effort be made to resume negotiations and reach an agreement.”
“It is necessary to overcome particular interests and guarantee the general ones, and overcome pressures of all kinds that respond more to circumstantial electoral calculations than to the search for the common good”, JJpD pointed out.
From the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI) they have stressed that what is “vital” now is to reform the law that was approved in March 2021, which limits the functions of the CGPJ when it is in office. Said legal text prohibits the Council from making discretionary appointments in the judicial leadership, which has led bodies such as the Supreme Court to collapse due to the number of vacancies it accumulates.
The president of the association, Fernando Portillo, has assured in statements to Europa Press that although “it is transmitted to public opinion that the renewal of the CGPJ is vital for the Spanish Justice, it is not.” “If it is renewed, the trials will not be held earlier,” he has said.
Portillo has insisted that “the fight for the Council is a matter of quotas of power” in which the parties do not act thinking of the citizens, but of their electoral interests.
For the president of FJI, the situation would be resolved with a reform that would allow the acting CGPJ to make all the appointments it must make. In line, he has criticized that the Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on the appeals that were filed against the 2021 law that limits the governing body of the judges.
“If it had already been resolved, we would have cleared up doubts. If it is constitutional, it could be changed in the General Courts. And if it is unconstitutional, it would be annulled,” he said.
