The agreement signed between the PSOE and the PP last June for the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) contained a clause that was secret until now. The two parties agreed that, for the first time in history, they would not appoint the person who would lead the institution. But they did agree that the twenty members – ten progressives and ten conservatives – had to agree on the basis of three conditions: that she be a woman, progressive and a judge of the Supreme Court.
Isabel Perelló (Sabadell, 1958) meets all these requirements. Elected with 16 votes, her appointment will allow the institution to start functioning normally again after years of discredit. And it also means that the first chair of the Spanish judiciary will once again be occupied by a person with a progressive profile after almost three decades.
But the path to consensus has not been easy. First, with a complex political agreement that the PP resisted for years, invoking ever more numerous and changing excuses. And then, five weeks of intense negotiations between the new members, in which the conservative sector threatened to violate the small print of the agreement between the parties. Their strategy was first to try to impose Judge Pablo Lucas, whose “brilliant” CV they defended; and, later, Carmen Lamela, whom they promoted after accepting that the position be given to a woman and to whom they tried to attribute a progressive sensibility that was difficult to sustain in her career as a magistrate.
For weeks, the division between the two governing blocs seemed insurmountable. A scenario of paralysis that different sources attribute to a “leadership clash” within the conservative sector. On the one hand, the members closest to the Popular Party, who believed that the agreed political agreement had to be respected. And on the other, those closest to the Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM), conservative and majority, who hesitated to designate a progressive profile when their predominance in the judicial career is indisputable.
At the top of the table were the names of seven Supreme Court justices. Perelló’s, although initially considered, was not included in the shortlist proposed by members of the judicial left. They chose to promote the candidacies of Supreme Court Justice Pilar Teso, whom conservatives considered an “emissary” of Justice Minister Félix Bolaños; and Ana Ferrer, who is credited with having close ties to Constitutional Court President Cándido Conde-Pumpido.
Although they are two renowned jurists, their profiles were categorically rejected by the conservative deputies, whose support was essential to carry out the nomination and who were keen to impose it on their candidates. All this despite the fact that, in the two previous agreements for the renewal of the CGPJ that were lost, the PSOE and the PP agreed on Teso’s name. In 2013, she was also the candidate of the progressive bloc against Carlos Lesmes. Years later, different sources agree that this circumstance was a “remorse” for Teso, who was placed as the preferred candidate of Moncloa and whose name was not even part of the final vote this Tuesday.
New profiles at the Supreme Court
After a dead end which lasted for weeks, the situation began to deteriorate a few days ago, when the possibility of looking for new consensus profiles in the Supreme Court began to strengthen. Sources of the organ specify that the first step was taken by the conservative deputy José Antonio Montero, who proposed to a councilor of the other bloc, Carlos Hugo Preciado, the name of Perelló, his companion in the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court and with whom he is united by a friendship of several years.
The proposal was welcomed by some progressives, who saw the move as a way out of the blockade. Others expressed doubts about changing the rules they had agreed to in July, which called for the presidency to be chosen from the first seven names proposed. On Monday afternoon, conservatives formally proposed opening the list of candidates, and their initiative was unanimously approved.
At this point, the testimonies of the dozen sources consulted inside and outside the body diverge on what led the conservative members to reject the profiles of Teso, Ferrer or Ángeles Huet to accept that of another “resolutely progressive” magistrate like Perelló. Some speak of “reasons of responsibility” given the “discredit” that would have entailed an arrival without a presidency at the solemn opening ceremony of the judicial year celebrated this Thursday and presided over by Felipe VI. There are also those who allude to the “Pyrrhic victory” of having aborted the appointment of the government’s preferred candidate. “We accept certain starting points, but not impositions,” says a source from the judicial right.
Other sources highlight the “intervention” of the Minister of Defense, Margarita Robles, who has been a close friend of Perelló for years and whose professional careers have run parallel. They shared their affiliation in the progressive association Judges and Judges for Democracy and worked hand in hand in the National Court and the Supreme Court. “Perelló arrived at the Supreme Court thanks to Robles in 2009, when she was a member of the CGPJ that appointed her,” recalls a judge of the High Court.
A lifeline against the blockade
Perelló’s name appeared as a kind of lifeline for all members, aware of the enormous discredit that would have been caused by appearing before the parade of robes and the authorities of the judicial opening without having been able to elect a president. “We have unblocked a complex situation, independently and without instructions. The path taken by the conservatives since Pablo Lucas until now must be appreciated,” believes a deputy of the progressive bloc, who believes that this first agreement “does not close doors, but opens many.”
“It will be very difficult to fully carry out the progressive project that we have. But the conclusion of all this is that before starting each plenary session, we must discuss and iron out the differences,” says another member of this group. Even in the conservative sector, there is awareness that there is now “a lot of dialogue.” One of its members points out that the fact that the most important decisions must be taken by three-fifths – 13 votes out of 21 – “will inevitably break the politics of blocs.”
Among these most immediate issues is that of beginning to reverse the consequences of the five years of blockade to which the PP has subjected the CGPJ. And the first challenge is to fill 98 vacancies in the main courts, including 26 in the Supreme Court, where almost one in three positions is not filled. These appointments require a reinforced majority that will depend, without a doubt, on the ability to reach agreements.
