The approval of the General Council of Justice (CGPJ) against the amnesty law, which was passed before the text of the law agreed between the PSOE and the Catalan independence parties was even known, will be submitted to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Sumar faction filed this Friday a complaint of prevarication against the ten conservative members of the body, all proposed by the PP in 2013 as part of the CGPJ, as they consider that they act in an “illegal and arbitrary” way have acted to reach an agreement that exceeds their authority. The complaint is directed against the nine members who signed the agreement and against the Council’s deputy president, Vicente Guilarte, who voted blank but called the meeting and later drafted a document setting out his position. After filing the complaint, Enrique Santiago, parliamentary spokesman for the IU in the Sumar group, described this CGPJ agreement as “serious political interference” and classified it in “a strategy previously decided in the political field,” referring to PP and Vox.
The resolution adopted by the CGPJ, which in a few days will complete its expired five-year mandate, states that the amnesty represents “a degradation and transformation” of the rule of law “into a marketing object at the service of the personal interest” of citizens, according to Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, showing the panel’s “great concern and desolation” in the face of what the clemency measure represents as a “deterioration, if not abolition, of the rule of law in Spain.”
More information
The group led by Yolanda Díaz states that the plenary session in which this resolution was voted on November 6 “was convened outside the legal provisions and with a purpose that goes beyond the powers of the CGPJ”. “The defendants themselves, who drafted and signed the agreement, prove this by stating in the agreement that “this declaration is not intended to replace the report avoided by the processing route chosen for the legislative initiative, but. “ issued before it is impossible to formulate it. That is, in the agreement itself, they recognize both their manifest lack of competence to adopt the administrative decision constituting the agreement and their conscious desire to evade it,” says the text registered before the Criminal Chamber.
Plenary meeting of the CGPJ on November 6, at which the agreement against the amnesty was approved.EFE
The complaint attributes to the ten members proposed by the PP an administrative offense under Article 404 of the Penal Code, which states: “To the authority or official who, knowing that he is unfair, issues an arbitrary decision in an administrative procedure.” In which Whatever the matter, he will be punished with special disqualification from employment or public office and from exercising the right to stand for election for a period of nine to fifteen years. Although Guilarte did not abide by this agreement, Sumar attributes the crime of subterfuge to his knowingly dictating an unjust decision and a necessary accomplice in the crime of prevarication committed by the members who signed the agreement because They had gathered at the request of their colleagues to hold an extraordinary plenary session to debate this resolution.
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
The document states that the agreement approved by the CGPJ meets the requirements of the crime of subterfuge. On the one hand, this is a decision made in an administrative matter. Sumar argues that the CGPJ agreements are governed by Articles 629 et seq. of the Courts Constitution Law (LOPJ), which states in Article 636.1 that they will be directly executive; and in 638.2 that “the agreements of the Plenary Session and the Standing Commission put an end to the administrative process and may be challenged before the Dispute Administration Chamber of the Supreme Court.”
Furthermore, it must be ruled out that it is an act protected by freedom of expression, since the agreement does not express the personal opinion of the members who sign it, but rather takes the form of an institutional act or declaration. and because the CGPJ is not the holder of the right to freedom of expression. They also consider that the Council decision was “arbitrary”, which is the other prerequisite for the existence of this crime. And in this case, it was arbitrary, Sumar claims, because the plenary lacked the power to dictate it, since dictating such an agreement is not one of the tasks assigned to the body.
The complaint also argues that the members who endorse the adopted resolution are taking on the task of interpreting the Constitution, which is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court alone, and intend to “influence public opinion and judicial activity and contribute to the development of a to intervene in the process”. political party, which may have to lead to the inauguration of a new government president (and thus violates the separation of powers that the defendants supposedly defend).” “We also find no provision in the European regulations that would justify a judicial council deciding to… “To exceed legal powers in order to intervene in the sphere of another state power and to deprive the body responsible for examining violations of a legal provision of powers.” the constitutional text,” refers to the text.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_