Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Rusia Ucrania Tribunal Supremo Terrorismo Irán

The progressive members of the CGPJ fail to agree on a joint resignation and consider the debate closed

The maneuver has only had the support of its promoter and the vocal that already resigned weeks ago.

- 6 reads.

The progressive members of the CGPJ fail to agree on a joint resignation and consider the debate closed

The maneuver has only had the support of its promoter and the vocal that already resigned weeks ago

The progressive members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) have held a meeting on Tuesday to assess a possible resignation en bloc, with the aim of forcing the renewal of the CGPJ -- expired since December 4, 2018 --, but it has finished without agreement because the majority still does not agree with this measure of pressure, with which the debate is considered finished.

According to the sources of the governing body of the judges consulted by Europa Press, the meeting has basically served for the eight members that make up the so-called progressive block of the CGPJ to discuss this issue for the first time among all of them, but without those who support the collective resignation have managed to convince those who are reluctant, so the differences persist.

The initiative started last Thursday from the progressive member Álvaro Cuesta, one day after it became known that his partner Concepción Sáez had submitted his resignation to the interim president of the CGPJ, Rafael Mozo, on March 13 due to the "unsustainable" situation of the Council, due both to the temporary situation and to internal tensions.

According to the aforementioned sources, the maneuver has only had the support of Cuesta himself, who has reserved his final decision -thus slipping an eventual individual resignation--, and of Sáez. In fact, some members have expressed their discomfort at even addressing the possibility of a joint resignation.

After this meeting, which lasted about two hours, the progressive members have not called for a new meeting, so the bloc considers the debate closed, only remaining for Mozo to decide in plenary session next Thursday if he rejects or accepts Sáez's resignation, although sources suggest that he will accept it.

The idea launched by Cuesta was that the other 7 progressive members - the six appointed at the proposal of the PSOE plus Enrique Lucas, nominated by the PNV but who usually aligns with this group - would join Sáez to endanger the 'quorum' of the Plenary and thus push the Government and the PP to agree on the renewal of the CGPJ.

However, the sources indicate that since then the initial theory has been falling apart due to growing doubts that the departure of the eight progressive members could tie up the CGPJ.

On Friday, there was already a first meeting with five members --Cuesta, Mozo, Sáez, Pilar Sepúlveda and Clara Martínez de Careaga-- which served to open the "reflection", since the remaining three --Mar Cabrejas, Roser Bach and Lucas-- they couldn't even attend telematically. Hence, the eight were cited for this Tuesday.

The objective of the meeting on March 28 was to try to agree on a common position to take to the ordinary plenary session on Thursday, where a "notification" of the resignation presented by Sáez and an "analysis of the current situation of the General Council of the Judiciary".

THE 'PLAN B' OF THE PERMANENT COMMISSION

In any case, the sources stress that the en bloc resignation of the eight progressives would be more a symbolic measure than a practical one because it seems clear that the CGPJ could continue to function.

The first stumbling block would be the 'quorum' of the Plenary, the highest body of the CGPJ. Currently, it is 11 (ten plus the president), so the departure of the progressive members could prevent it from being constituted. However, from the conservative wing it is warned that, since Mozo is an interim president, it could be interpreted that with the ten conservative members it is possible to continue working.

The second spring that would avoid the paralysis of the CGPJ is the Permanent Commission, its executive body. The sources consulted are sure that, even if it were impossible to form a plenary session, said commission -for which only seven members are required- could continue to operate.

Thus, the departure of the eight progressives would leave the CGPJ in the hands of the ten conservatives, who rule out resigning alleging, on the one hand, the need to continue resolving the day-to-day problems of the Judiciary (low leave, payroll, etc.) and, on the other, that the solution to non-renewal must be provided by political forces.

Keywords:
CGPJ