Judicial associations "absolutely" reject the remuneration equalization with the judges that the LAJ claim

They reproach the Ministry for being more interested in confronting judges and LAJ than in "providing solutions"

MADRID, 17 Feb. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Professional Association of the Magistracy (APM) and the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV) have "outright" rejected the remuneration equalization with the judges that the Lawyers of the Administration of Justice (LAJ) demand with the indefinite strike that began last January 24, the same rejection that Judges for Democracy (JJpD) has also expressed.

"Without prejudice to the legitimate approach to the measures that are considered necessary in defense of their collective interests, we categorically reject the salary down payment clause," said APM and AJFV in a joint statement released this Friday.

APM --the majority association in the judicial career-- and AJFV have reasoned that "the functions and responsibilities that the Constitution entrusts exclusively and exclusive to judges and magistrates prevent the retributive assimilation of any other body."

In another statement from this same Friday, JJpD has also stated that, although the LAJ's economic and other claims seem "respectable", "what is not acceptable is that they try to link themselves to the remuneration of the judicial career and fiscal".

JJpD has also stated that "the work and functions of judges and magistrates are not comparable to that of the Lawyers of the Administration of Justice neither in substance nor in form". "They are neither better nor worse. They are different," she has emphasized.

Beyond the salary demands, APM and AJFV have referred to the strike to indicate that they have attended "with caution but with great concern" to its evolution and to "the immobilist attitude of the Ministry of Justice".

"We find that the minister, Pilar Llop, and her team persist in their lack of interest and commitment to efficient and quality Justice," the two associations have denounced.

Along these lines, they have indicated that the behavior of the Ministry reminds them of "the repeated breaches of the judicial career", stressing that in their case they were forced, "after sterile negotiations, to go to court to demand compliance with the mandates of the Remuneration Law regarding the call of the technical table".

However, they have shown their "concern" because "the current situation is distorting an essential administration, already diminished by the lack of means and investment and which now suffers unnecessary tensions due to the null responsibility of the Ministry, more interested in confronting judges and magistrates with the body of Lawyers of the Administration of Justice than in providing solutions".