The General Council of Justice (CGPJ) has agreed to allow the processing of the application for protection requested by the judge of the National Court Manuel García-Castellón, following the public demonstrations of the Secretary of State for Justice, Tontxu Rodríguez, the spokesperson of the Generalitat of Catalonia, Patricia Plaja. The judge, investigator in the Tsunami Democràtic case and who identified that Carles Puigdemont and Marta Rovira were under investigation for a terrorist crime, reported to the senior panel of judges that both had made statements from which one could conclude the intention to influence the judicial process as well “interfere” or “interfere” with him in the exercise of his judicial duties. The CGPJ permanent commission gives Rodríguez and Plaja ten days to make allegations.
The decision of the senior panel of judges was made by a majority, with votes in favor of the deputy president, member Vicente Guilarte, and the conservative members José Antonio Ballestero, Ángeles Carmona and Carmen Llombart, as well as the progressive Roser Bach. The deputies Mar Cabrejas and Pilar Sepúlveda, both from the progressive sector, voted against it. The matter is again straining the relationship between the CGPJ, whose mandate expired five years ago, and political leaders linked to the government or its parliamentary partners.
More information
García-Castellón’s application for protection reached the senior panel of judges last Monday. The head of Central Court 6 sentenced Rodríguez and Plaja for statements they both recently made to the media. In the case of the Secretary of State for Justice, this happened in an interview with Radio Popular-Herri Irratia on November 8, in which Rodríguez accused the judge of wanting to “influence” the negotiations between PSOE and Junts by pointing out investigations against Puigdemont and indictment against Rovira for terrorism in the democratic tsunami case. “I have no idea if he has a reason or not, but what a coincidence it must be that day, hey. Look, it could have been a year and a half before or a year and a half after, well, no. It has to take place in the middle of the negotiations. If that has no influence, may God come and see…,” the Foreign Minister explained. Plaja’s statements were made during a press conference in which the Generalitat spokesman pointed out that those in charge of administering justice “some, not all, seek not only to influence political negotiations but also to punish them through subterfuge.” .”
The possibility for judges to seek protection from the CGPJ if they are “concerned or disturbed in their independence” is included in Article 14 of the Organic Law of Justice (LOPJ), but it is a route with few practical implications beyond that could lead to calls for attention from those responsible for the reported behavior. The procedure is set out in the 2011 Code of Professional Conduct for Judges, which stipulates, among other things, that disturbing or disruptive acts are considered “statements or demonstrations made in public and collected in the media that objectively constitute an attack on the independence of the judiciary” and are likely to impair the free decision-making capacity of the judge or magistrate.”
Once the application is accepted for processing, which is now the step, the CGPJ will wait for the allegations to be received and then make a decision. To this end, the Standing Party submits a proposal to the plenary session, which is put to the vote. The decision granting protection may agree, according to the regulations: “to require the person, organization or association to cease the act that gave rise to the request for protection” and “to adopt or promote the adoption of the measures necessary for the restoration of protection.” Protection.” damaged the independence of the judiciary.” The resolution adopted by the plenary session can be communicated to the public prosecutor’s office.
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
In the document registered with the CGPJ, García-Castellón claims that Rodríguez’s public statements represent a “disruption” to his “independence”, since the criticism comes from an “organ”, the Secretary of State for Justice, to which they are addressed “including support and cooperation with the judicial administration”. […] or participation in the Ministry’s relations with the governing bodies of the General Council of Justice.” With regard to those of Plaja, the judge considers that this could constitute the commission of a defamation offense with public access “to be prosecuted ex officio can by openly accusing an authority of committing a criminal act or of judicial subterfuge,” for which he reiterates that he has also contacted the public prosecutor’s office to investigate the matter.
From the agreement adopted this Thursday by the Permanent Commission, it appears that the CGPJ has repeatedly stated that the granting of protection is based on the confluence of circumstances which, analyzed from “objective points of view”, achieve “sufficient virtuality” to ensure a to cause disruption of judicial independence. And in this case, according to this body, based on the presentation of the events reflected in the application for protection, it can be assumed from the outset that there are “sufficient reasons for accepting the application for processing”, which is why it agrees to accept it and gives it to the Secretary of State for Justice and the spokesman of the Generalitat a period of ten days to make allegations. The matter will then be referred again to the Standing Committee for a final decision.
The deputy Mar Cabrejas justified her vote in a letter in which she explained that, in her opinion, in this case the conditions for admitting the Amparo application to processing were not met: that the actions of third parties were not cited only by the judge damage the value of judicial independence, but also influence the judicial decision-making process. However, he has suggested that the permanent adopt a statement clarifying that the statements denounced by García-Castellón “are inadmissible and must be classified with the fair conditions they deserve: an unjustified excess of criticism of the decisions of the judicial measures.” that when they come from public and political officials, they take on particularly serious profiles.”
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_