A hard blow from the Supreme Court to the CGPJ by suspending the instruction which allows judges to delegate their vote during their internal elections

The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed this Monday to the preventive suspension of the Instruction of the General Council of the Judicial Power, of November 6, concerning the elections to the governmental chambers of the Supreme Court, the National Tribunal and the courts superiors. of Justice. The contradictory point of this instruction is that it foresees the possibility that If a judge cannot vote in person, delegate his vote in a colleague who, in the opinion of the judicial associations that appealed, Francisco de Vitoria and Foro Judicial Independiente, does not guarantee a transparent electoral process.

Barely a few days ago, this same Chamber rejected the very precautionary measure that the applicants had requested, considering that it was not necessary to adopt it without hearing the parties (which differentiates the very precautionary measure from the precautionary measure) and that there was enough until the 26th (date planned for these elections to be held) to listen to the parties, in this case the prosecution representing the CGPJ.

The Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association and the Independent Judicial Forum Association requested the precautionary measure while the appeal they filed against the aforementioned instruction and the delegated vote is in progress. They recall that this type of vote is not provided for neither in the organic law of the judiciary nor in its implementing regulations, which violates the principles of authenticity, secrecy and equality this should govern any electoral process in which voting is only possible by mail or in person. There is therefore no necessary guarantee to ensure the traceability of the vote, which could open the door to “manipulations or irregularities” in the electoral process.

Added to this is that for both associations the Instruction exceeds the powers of the General Council of the Magistracy, since an essential aspect of the LOPJ is modified “without adequate regulatory support”.

Council reaction

Despite the alarm signal from the Supreme Court, the CGPJ praised the speed of its precautionary pronouncement, “which eliminates possible uncertainties this could happen during the holding of elections to the Government Chambers scheduled for November 26,” he said in a press release. Recall that the Third Chamber makes its decision in relation to the Instruction adopted unanimously by the plenary of the Council which “intended to introduce additional guarantees to the electoral process”.