Seat of the Supreme Court in Madrid. Pablo Monge
The Supreme Court once again raises its voice in the face of the redundancies the court has suffered due to the delay in hiring the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), whose mandate expired in December 2018. The ruling chamber unanimously agreed to insist that the council ask Congress and the Senate to find an “immediate resolution” to the “unsustainable situation” the court is in due to the legal impossibility of filling vacant judgeships. Currently there are 19 of the 79 (24%) legal staff, but in the coming months of 2023 they will increase to 24 vacancies (30.37%).
The judges of the Governing Chamber – which includes the Presidents of the five Supreme Chambers and four other judges elected by their peers – have adopted this agreement after approving a report by the Director of the Court’s Technical Bureau requested by the CGPJ, where the repercussions on the functioning of each of the Supreme Chambers deriving from the legal impossibility of making discretionary appointments by the governing body of judges while in office as it is now.
It’s not the first time the Governing Chamber has asked Parliament to end the interim CGPJ, as the law entrusts the extension to Congress and the Senate. Both chambers started the process in 2018 before Lesmes’ term expired, but disagreements between the two main political groups (whose approval is needed to obtain the three-fifths majority needed to appoint the new members) keep the body deadlocked.
As on previous occasions, the Supreme Court explains the precarious situation in which the institution finds itself, a situation which it considers “critical” in the case of Chamber IV (Social Affairs) with 5 vacancies out of 13 staff; and III (dispute management), with 10 vacancies and 33 employees. In order to mitigate this, the court management demands in its agreement the provision of 15 positions as a lawyer in the technical office, eight for room III and seven for room IV.
The Supreme Court is the court most harmed by the government’s veto, which allows the chief justice body to make discretionary appointments. The government introduced this ban into the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ) in March last year through a reform aimed at reducing the functions of the current council in order to put pressure on the PP to sit down to decide on its renewal negotiate. But the popular ones, first to Pablo, who was married in the presidency, and then to Alberto Núñez Feijóo, have chained excuses to prevent the renewal.
In its latest agreement, the Supreme Court requires Parliament to “immediately remedy the situation” and “encourage all other initiatives to prevent it from deteriorating”. According to estimates by the court, around 1,230 fewer judgments will be passed in 2023 in the two chambers most affected by job vacancies alone (570 fewer in procedural law and 660 fewer in social law), “with the considerable damage” that this entails for citizens brings with it the serious delay in passing thousands of resolutions that the panel said would lead to the “collapse” of both chambers.
What affects most is what happens closer. Subscribe so you don’t miss anything.
Subscribe to
The approved report recalls that the Supreme Court is required by law to have a President and 79 judges, but currently has no titular President (following the resignation of Carlos Lesmes last October) and has a total of 19 vacancies for judges: two vacancies in in the First Chamber, ten in the Third Chamber, five in the Fourth Chamber and two in the Fifth Chamber, which means that the Court has to carry out its duties with a staff that is 24.05% less than the statutory number. In the coming months, another five judges will retire (one in the Civil Chamber, one in the Criminal Chamber, one in the Trial Chamber, one in the Social Chamber and one in the Military Chamber), that is 24 out of 79 vacant positions that Es represents 30.37% less than expected. In addition, the posts of President and Vice-President of the Court and Presidents of Rooms III and IV are vacant (and filled).
Regarding the requests of judges for the technical cabinet, the report stresses that they would support the chambers in the decision-making phases, where the most relevant bottlenecks arise, to develop and consolidate draft sentences with a repetitive character under the supervision of the rapporteurs or with stable ones jurisprudence. The report recalls that the Supreme Court is “in no way the cause but the direct victim” of the situation, which requires the establishment of a system that makes it possible “to overcome existing difficulties and to deal with appeals within reasonable timeframes, so as not to cause further harm to citizens who trust in the judiciary and expect their claims to be settled without delay”. Regarding Chamber I (Civil Law) with two vacancies out of ten judges, to which one more will be added in March the report notes the urgent need to extend the existing reinforcement measures (four lawyers in the technical office and five coordinating lawyers in the decision phase).
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits