The case should have been settled on August 1, according to the deadlines set by law. But the election of the presidency of the new General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) remains pending. The conservative and progressive blocs, with ten representatives each, maintain their opposing positions. Negotiations remain open pending a new meeting scheduled for September 2, when the legal deadline will have been exceeded by one month. The judicial law provides that the election of the presidency, which will also be the election of the Supreme Court, will take place “between three and seven days” after the constitutive session, which was held on July 25.
The clash between the two sectors highlights that, for the first time, the election of the presidency has not been the subject of an agreement between the two main parties, eager to place a greater number of like-minded members. Until this eighth term, it was usual for the appointment of the presidency – which is formally made by the members – to be decided in advance by the politicians. The blockade also shows the total importance that both blocs give to the person in charge of leading an institution that manages a budget close to 80 million euros and is responsible for electing senior officials of the judicial career and sanctioning the offences of judges.
The CGPJ is a collegiate body, in which many decisions are taken by majority vote. But the one who exercises the presidency has a casting vote in the event of a tie. This is something that can be key in a scenario like this, in which the agreement between the Government and the PP has led to an equal distribution between the two sectors, with ten representatives for each. And taking into account, in addition, that the body faces the challenge of renewing a hundred judges at the top of the courts.
These appointments require a three-fifths majority (13 of the 21 members), although the presidency’s vote may be equally relevant given the essential agreements that must be reached between members of both sectors to proceed with these appointments. The situation is particularly compromised in the Supreme Court, where a third of the seats are vacant due to the veto on appointments during part of the blockade imposed by the PP in the previous term.
Furthermore, many other issues decided in plenary do not require this reinforced majority to be approved and only require an absolute majority (11 of the 21 members). This is the case, for example, of reports on government projects or institutional communications or declarations. For example, during the previous mandate, the conservative bloc used its overwhelming majority within the body to publish a statement against the amnesty law even before its content was known.
Control of topics to be discussed
The new president will inherit a less presidential body than that led by the last ordinary president, Carlos Lesmes. Thanks to a reform approved alone by the PP in 2013 and in the preparation of which he himself collaborated, Lesmes had the power to propose to the members of the all-powerful Permanent Commission, a sort of hard core where many relevant decisions are taken. In the previous term, its seven members were the only ones with exclusive dedication.
From now on, the 20 members are free to devote themselves 100% to the CGPJ, as was the case until 2013. The law in force also specifies that the “election and appointment” of the members of the Permanent and the rest of the commissions (Equality, Economic Affairs, Disciplinary, etc.) depends on the plenary session.
However, the presidency continues to have a great responsibility in the day-to-day management of the body. For example, among its powers are “to convene, preside over and set the agenda” of the plenary sessions and the Permanent Assembly. In other words, you control the times and the issues to be discussed. In the absence of a presidency, whether or not an issue is included on the agenda requires unanimity. For example, the opposing position of the progressive deputies prevented the debate on August 19 on the advisability of publishing a statement criticizing the statements of Minister Óscar Puente on the Supreme Court and its application of the amnesty, as the representatives of the conservative bloc wanted. The topic was not even included on the agenda.
The presidency also decides which members act as spokespersons on the Government’s laws, direct institutional communication – with the power to elect the director of communication – or direct the activities of the technical bodies. And this could also raise another very sensitive question: which judge of the Supreme Court is responsible for authorizing the entries into private homes and the wiretapping required by the National Intelligence Center (CNI). The judicial control of the intelligence services is now in the hands of Judge Pablo Lucas, precisely the preferred candidate of the conservative deputies to preside over the CGPJ.
The members of both blocs consulted by elDiario.es do not hide the importance of placing a similar figure at the head of the institution. “There must be an appearance of democratic legitimacy,” says a source from the progressive sector in reference to the “sociological majority” expressed in the elections that led Moncloa to a progressive coalition government. In this bloc, they mention controversial precedents such as that of Carlos Dívar, a judge with a conservative profile who became president of the CGPJ in 2008, with the consent of the PSOE, then in government. He had to resign after it was made public that he had paid his travel expenses with the institution’s money, on weekends, with stays in luxury hotels and meals in expensive restaurants.
The progressive sector aspires for the first time to have a woman preside over the CGPJ, with Supreme Court judge Pilar Teso as the main candidate. The shortlist of the progressive bloc is completed by Ana Ferrer, the first woman to access the Criminal Chamber of the High Court and who was part of the court that condemned the Catalan independence process; and with Ángeles Huet, one of the latest arrivals in the Contentious-Administrative Chamber.
The preferred candidate of the members chosen on the proposal of the PP is the aforementioned Pablo Lucas, whom they try to pass off as a progressive and consensual profile, something with which they do not agree in the other bloc. However, in the last plenary session in which this issue was addressed, they agreed to elect a woman, but on the condition that it be one of the judges proposed by their sector: Carmen Lamela and Esperanza Córdoba. They emphasize that both are renowned jurists and are not linked to any association, even if they have conservative profiles that do not like the members proposed by the PSOE and Sumar.
Conversations are still open, but time is running out. On September 5, the solemn opening ceremony of the Judicial Year will take place at the Supreme Court, where the presidency of the CGPJ and the High Court will deliver a speech before King Felipe VI and the rest of the authorities.
