The Constitutional magistrates discuss the admission to processing of the appeal of the PP against the reform of the court

This is the first item on the agenda of an extraordinary plenary session that is expected to be long

MADRID, 19 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The eleven magistrates of the Constitutional Court (TC), meeting since 10:00 a.m. in an extraordinary plenary session, are still in an embryonic phase of the debate on the admission or not of the appeal presented by the PP against two amendments that modify the system of election and arrival of the two candidates to the TC that must be appointed by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), according to legal sources consulted by Europa Press.

This is the first point on the agenda, although the unknown to be cleared up is what will be the next point to be addressed by the magistrates in this extraordinary plenary session, in the event that they give the go-ahead to the admission for processing.

According to the sources consulted, the progressive wing --made up of five magistrates-- will try to make the challenges formulated by Unidas Podemos (UP) against the president of the TC, Pedro González-Trevijano, and magistrate Antonio Narváez be the second point to treat because, if so, an incident will have to be opened that will cause the suspension of the procedure until it is resolved, giving the Senate time to approve said amendments next Thursday.

On the contrary, the conservative bloc -with six magistrates- will ensure that the debate continues with the discussion of the very precautionary measures, since, if agreed, they would cause the urgent suspension of the parliamentary process, thus stopping the reform.

In this sense, some sources add that the request to remove González-Trevijano and Narváez is made in a letter where United We Can request to appear in person -same request that the PSOE has made--, therefore they maintain that until the TC resolves the question of appearance neither of them are part of the procedure and it would not be possible to study the claims they make, including the recusals.

In the last few hours, UP has presented a new letter where it asks the Constitutional Court to submit a preliminary ruling to the CJEU so that the community court can clarify whether González-Trevijano and Narváez should abstain, a second way that would also lead to the suspension of the procedure until this question get an answer.

Since last Friday, the TC has received close to a dozen new letters signed by UP, PSOE, PP and Vox. And it should be remembered that the progressive magistrates managed last Thursday to postpone the extraordinary plenary session to this Monday, claiming, precisely, that new writings had entered that they had to study in depth.

In addition, some sources emphasize that the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court (LOTC) supports the suspension, in whole or in part, of the effects of the appealed decisions "as long as (...) it does not cause serious disturbance to a constitutionally protected interest nor to the fundamental rights or freedoms of another person".

In line, they emphasize that in its more than 40 years of history the TC has never prevented discussion and voting in the Cortes Generales, so it would be an unprecedented measure that - they allege - would cause a "serious disturbance" due to interference in the Legislative Power and the affectation of the rights of the rest of the deputies and of the citizens they represent.

However, the sources admit that the number of factors that could end up influencing the final decision makes it difficult to predict what it will be, so everything will depend on how the debate between the magistrates runs.

The Congress of Deputies approved the bill with its amendments last Thursday after the president of the TC opted to suspend the extraordinary plenary session of that day and call another one for this Monday.

According to sources from the court of guarantees, he did so after the five progressive magistrates threatened not to deliberate or vote, if they were not given more time to study a matter of great "complexity" and "relevance" that they had barely heard about. 24 hours before. If they had left, they would have prevented the 'quorum' of at least 8 magistrates that is required for the Plenary to be validly constituted.