The recusal raised by Podemos in the TC opens a way for the reform promoted by the Government to be approved

If addressed during the plenary session next Monday, it would cause the suspension of the procedure on the appeal of the PP

MADRID, 16 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The challenges raised by Unidas Podemos (UP) against the president of the Constitutional Court (TC), Pedro González Trevijano, and magistrate Antonio Narváez could lead to the suspension of the procedure that is currently being followed in the TC due to the appeal of the PP to stop the parliamentary processing of the reform of the court itself, so that, if they are discussed in plenary session scheduled for next Monday, they will allow the Senate to definitively approve the reform.

UP has requested that González-Trevijano and Narváez be removed, alleging that they have a "direct interest" in the TC not being renewed because they are the two magistrates who will replace the two candidates appointed by the Government -- former Justice Minister Juan Carlos Campo and the former high office of Moncloa Laura Díez-- once the reform devised by the 'morados' and the PSOE was completed in two amendments incorporated into the bill to repeal sedition.

According to the legal sources consulted by Europa Press, these challenges are the main trump card to prevent the conservative majority of the TC --six out of eleven magistrates-- from admitting the very precautionary measures demanded by the PP in the amparo appeal that it presented last Wednesday against said amendments.

And this is because, if González-Trevijano and Narváez do not withdraw voluntarily, a recusal motion is opened that has a suspensive effect on the entire procedure until it is resolved, for which there is a specific procedure that contemplates deadlines of several days, a parenthesis during which it would give time for the Senate to approve the bill and its amendments in its plenary session next Thursday.

However, the sources stress that, in order to reach this scenario, it is an essential requirement that the question of the recusals be addressed in the conclave on Monday. And it does not appear on the agenda, since it only contemplates the invocation to the Plenary (so that the eleven magistrates are the ones who deliberate and vote on the set of petitions coupled with the PP appeal), the admission for processing of the same and the very precautionary measures.

Here opinions differ. Thus, some sources maintain that the issue of the recusals should be addressed immediately after resolving the admission of the 'popular' appeal and before debating the very precautionary suspension, an assumption that would lead to the described scenario, where the Upper House could seal the reform of the CT.

However, other sources understand that the especially urgent nature of the very precautionary measures is sufficient reason to resolve them before discussing the challenges made.

To this they add that the request to separate González-Trevijano and Narváez is made in a letter where United We Can request to appear -same request that the PSOE has made--, therefore, until the TC resolves the issue of the appearance , neither of them are part of the procedure.

What the sources consulted agree on is that the organization of the debate within the Plenary is the responsibility of the president of the TC, so that he will be the one who decides if the planned order is altered, something that is usually done taking into account the majority feeling, although this is not binding.

Thus, some voices emphasize that the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court (LOTC) endorses the suspension, total or partial, of the effects of the appealed decisions "as long as (...) it does not cause serious disturbance to an interest constitutionally protected, nor to the fundamental rights or freedoms of another person".

In this regard, 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 Branch 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.

It should be remembered that the Congress of Deputies approved the bill with its amendments on Thursday after the president of the TC opted to suspend the extraordinary plenary that day and call another one for 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.