Several dozen judges and prosecutors have accounts on Twitter and other social networks. Some with their first and last name, others anonymously give advice to opponents, comment on Supreme Court rulings or criticize the political situation and legal reforms currently being approved. One of them was, until a few days ago, Manuel Ruiz de Lara. This commercial magistrate from Madrid deleted his account after the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) opened a file to see if he incurred any type of offense for describing the President of the Government as a “psychopath without ethical limits » or “personification”. of dishonor” to the state attorney general.
Manuel Ruiz de Lara passed, among other destinations, through the commercial courts of Cádiz or Barcelona before arriving on Madrid’s Gran Vía, where his name appeared on the covers of all the sports newspapers. The trial of the Super League, a proposed new European competition promoted by some of the richest football teams in the continental leagues, has fallen into his camp. And his first decision did not go unnoticed: he categorically prohibited FIFA and UEFA from taking any action, not even the slightest communication, to restrict the project that, among other teams, Real Madrid, Atlético de Madrid and Barça wanted to start with Florentino Pérez. in front.
This legal process, with several million euros at stake, raised the name of Ruiz de Lara to the altars of the sports pages while he was in charge of the court and the case. But by then, the judge specializing in business litigation had already made a name for himself on Twitter, where he managed to accumulate several thousand followers. In this story, which has now disappeared, he spoke of football, gastronomy, running but also of justice, politics and especially the system of election of members of the General Council of the Judicial Power.
The slogan, under the slogan of “imperturbable idealism”, was to defend “judicial independence” and to criticize the political pacts used for the “farce” of the renewal of the ruling body of judges, in their own words, defining as “an escalation”. » to the politicians who participate in the process. In recent years, for example, he has called Juan Carlos Campo, former justice minister, an “unhonorable rise.” “Pocket Stalin,” he says of Pablo Iglesias, former vice president, in this article. “None of them have honor, or principles, or training,” he said of Pedro Sánchez and Pablo Casado.
Other politicians deserved a better opinion of him. For example, Macarena Olona, spokesperson for the far-right Vox party in Congress until a year and a half ago. “There are politicians who climb and denigrate democracy. And then there are others like her, Macarena Olona, who choose principles and honor. It is not about ideologies or parties, but about defending the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. No more, no less,” he said of the man who was then leader of Santiago Abascal’s party.
Ruiz de Lara even appeared in Congress in its commission for the audit of democratic quality and the fight against corruption. The latest conviction to reach the general public from his court is the one that increased the bill of a million dollars for Julio Ariza, the main media businessman of Vox, due to the economic debacle of the Intereconomía Group a year ago ten years.
His strong opinions on politics and justice in Spain have reached the shelves of bookstores. “Patria Judicial” and “Patria Olvidada” are the two novels that this magistrate has published in recent years, recounting episodes of judicial and political intrigue with characters taken directly from reality but with a modified letter in the name or first name .
In one of his works, for example, President Pedro Sánchez Castellón is assassinated by a sniper as he was preparing to testify for corruption before a Supreme Court presided over by Carlos Mestres. There is a retired politician called Ruiz Gilardón, another active one called Grande-Marlanda and experts in intrigue called Juan Carlos Monedas, Raúl Iglesias or Eloísa Beni. “I leave the parallels to the reader,” said the author in this interview with El Debate. “Reality or fiction”, asks the Professional Association of the Judiciary on its website.
His tweets, in front of the CGPJ
In recent months, the messages on his Twitter account, now defunct, have become more and more tonic as the details of the amnesty law or the allusions to “lawfare” in the pact between the PSOE and Junts became known. And one of them reached the hands of the General Council of the Judicial Power and its Promoter of Disciplinary Action, the one responsible for investigating whether a judge has committed any type of offense that deserves sanction in a process that , ultimately, must pass into the hands of the Disciplinary Commission.
The path from Twitter to possible sanction is very long and, for the moment, it has not been traveled by any member of the Spanish judicial career. “At first, you were informed of the opening agreement so that you can argue what you consider appropriate,” the CGPJ said in a press release a few days ago to explain the opening of the procedure. The tweet calling Sánchez a “psychopath” is not the only one to have reached the hands of the ruling body of judges: the prosecution also sent another, now deleted, in which he described Álvaro García Ortiz as “the personification of dishonor “. Attorney General of the State, for not having resisted the allusions to “lawfare”.
The freedom of expression of judges who use public social networks identifying themselves as members of the judicial career has been a controversial issue within the Council itself in recent years. The organic law of the judiciary, as has been concluded several times at the CGPJ, does not include any article allowing a judge to be sanctioned for messages like these. Addressing another power of the State with “congratulations or censures” is a serious offense, but only if it is done “by invoking the quality of judge” or by taking advantage of the toga. Also lack of respect towards their superiors or lack of consideration towards citizens. But there is nothing specific about this type of explosion.
The Council revealed this regulatory gap in a 1985 law when it had to study the case of Manuel Piñar, the judge who first sentenced Juana Rivas, for writing on Facebook things such as that the central executive exercised “feminist communism”. The same promoter who is currently investigating Ruiz de Lara archived this procedure when he understood that Piñar could not be sanctioned for his sexist remarks, also disgraced by the prosecution.
If the magistrate who publishes these messages does not “expressly” invoke his capacity as judge, or if it is “possible” to understand that he is doing so “as a simple citizen”, it is something which, considers the CGPJ, “lacks typicality because of today”. The Standing Commission added something to what was said by the promoter: according to the members, it is appropriate for the legislator to evaluate the possibility of reviewing the disciplinary types which allow magistrates to be sanctioned.
Another case is that of a judge from Barcelona who, using an anonymous profile, called on his colleagues to reject the appeals presented by the Generalitat of Catalonia. In this case, since it was an anonymous account, the panel of judges understood that he was not presenting himself as a judge by making these comments. It remains to be seen whether these arguments also apply to the words of Manuel Ruiz de Lara. The Judicial Ethics Commission, whose opinions are not binding, recommends that if a judge uses Twitter, he does so with “caution” and ensuring his “appearance of impartiality”. “The judge’s participation in social networks must be governed, in general, by prudence and moderation.”
