The CGPJ warns that it will remain "vigilant" before the parliamentary commissions created by alleged 'lawfare'

Three members who asked to reject the statements of the Government and the commissions see this statement as "insufficient"

The Permanent Commission of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has reiterated this Tuesday its rejection of the allusions to 'lawfare' contained in the agreement between the PSOE and Junts, while warning that it will remain "vigilant" against the creation of the first parliamentary commissions to detect such cases.

The executive body of the CGPJ has agreed to ratify the statement it made on November 9, after learning of said agreement, in which it expressed its "frontal opposition" to the creation of parliamentary commissions to detect cases of alleged 'lawfare' and anticipated that it would act through "legally established channels" if they materialize.

The Permanent Commission has reviewed the matter in an extraordinary meeting called for this Tuesday at the request of the conservative members José Antonio Ballestero, Ángeles Carmona and Carmen Llombart, after the Board of the Congress of Deputies has approved the constitution of two investigation commissions which will deal with the jihadist attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils on August 17, 2017 and the so-called 'Operation Catalonia'.

In this context, the Permanent Commission has added to that first statement that "the General Council of the Judiciary will remain vigilant, in defense of judicial independence, in relation to the development of the aforementioned parliamentary investigation commissions."

The agreement has been approved with the casting vote of the interim president of the CGPJ, Vicente Guilarte, after both he and the progressive members Roser Bach and Mar Cabrejas expressed their support for the text. For her part, the progressive member Pilar Sepúlveda also voted blank.

However, the three promoters - Ballestero, Carmona and Llombart - have voted against and have announced the formulation of a dissenting vote because they consider that the agreement is "insufficient" and needs to be expanded, as reported by the CGPJ.

These three members requested the extraordinary meeting considering that the threat contained in the PSOE-Junts agreement has materialized with the creation of these two parliamentary commissions.

"The time has come, therefore, to continue with the announced opposition to the creation of these commissions in the legitimate exercise of the powers attributed to this Council, created precisely by the Spanish Constitution, overcoming the dictatorial stage of unity of power and coordination of functions, to guarantee the independence of the Judiciary," they maintain in their dissenting opinion.

For them, it is "a democratic demand" because these commissions are intended to "generate a new type of responsibility for judges and magistrates, which would no longer be only legal responsibility - criminal, civil or disciplinary - but also the responsibility political, contrary to the model of a constitutional judge, independent as subject only to the rule of Law".

"This constitutional and European judge, the only one who can guarantee a fair trial," they point out, is "the one who calls into question" the recent statements made by the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, and by his Minister of Transport, Óscar Puente.

SANCHEZ AND PUENTE

Regarding the first, they remember that in the interview given to TVE he affirmed the existence of 'lawfare' in Spain, while regarding Puente they indicate that when asked in eldiario.es about these cases he answered: "This is like the meigas, one can not believe in them, but there are some. There are undoubtedly cases of 'lawfare' in this country. And to deny it is a gesture of cynicism. I believe that the Judiciary cannot cling to corporatism and say that there are no cases of 'lawfare'." .

The three members consider that all of this constitutes "an inadmissible and unjustified climate of agitation and propaganda against judges and magistrates who, however, have limited themselves to applying, with the guarantees of a fair trial according to the highest standards of the rule of law , laws, such as the current Penal Code, approved by the Cortes Generales arising from the Spanish Constitution".

For this reason, they believe that their initial proposal, in which they asked to expressly reject the Government's statements and the constitution of these two parliamentary commissions, should have been the one approved by the Permanent Commission.