Conservative members wanted the CGPJ to be heard despite the fact that in this case it is not mandatory
MADRID, 24 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -
The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has decided this Thursday -by 9 votes against, 8 in favor and one blank-- not to demand that an opinion be requested on the proposal of PSOE and United We Can to repeal sedition and create a new crime of aggravated public disorder, thus rejecting the request made by the majority of the conservative members.
The sources of the governing body of the judges consulted by Europa Press indicate that the request made by a group of eight conservative members has been rejected but that there will be a private vote from those same members.
Likewise, the aforementioned sources detail that the 9 votes correspond to the whole of the progressive block plus Vicente Guilarte; the 8 in favor, to the members who have put the issue on the table; and the blank vote, to Wenceslao Olea.
The vote, held within the framework of the ordinary plenary session held this Thursday, took place on the same day that the parliamentary process of the bill of the political parties that make up the Government begins in the Congress of Deputies.
It was on November 18 when these eight members --Gerardo Martínez, José Antonio Ballestero, Juan Manuel Fernández, Juan Martínez Moya, José María Macías, Nuria Díaz Abad, Carmen Llombart and Ángeles Carmona-- requested the interim president of the CGPJ, Rafael Young man, to include in the agenda of the plenary this Thursday his proposal on the penal reform announced by the Government.
The members wanted, in the first place, that the Plenary would rule "on the lack of request for a report" in relation to the proposal to repeal sedition and, in a further step, that it be debated "if, despite this, it did not It would be opportune for the Plenary to evacuate said report".
The point is that PSOE and Unidas Podemos presented their legislative initiative as a bill, a formula that allows not requesting reports from the CGPJ and other constitutional bodies that, if the bill had been adopted, would be mandatory.
"It must be borne in mind that, although article 561.1 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ) only refers to bills, and not to bills, European standards require that all regulatory proposals that affect the Judiciary Judicial must submit to a prior report from the Councils of Justice," argued these eight members.
In addition, they called attention to the fact that "on repeated occasions we come across important reforms that affect the Judiciary and that, instead of being processed as bills by the Government, it is the parliamentary groups that support the Government that present in the Congress of Deputies as bills, thus obviating the processing of the mandatory report of this General Council of the Judiciary if it had been processed in another way".