The recusals of the PP against Campo and Díez force the Constitutional Court to postpone the debate on euthanasia

The next plenary will see abstentions from Campo in almost 20 matters and the recusals of Vox for the penal reform

The challenges formulated by the PP against the magistrates of the Constitutional Court (TC) Juan Carlos Campo and Laura Díez to separate them from the deliberation of the appeal presented by the 'popular' against the euthanasia law has led to this matter not going to plenary next week, as planned.

As reported by the guarantee court, although the new president of the TC, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, announced upon his arrival in office that the plenary session on February 21, 22 and 23 would study the unconstitutionality appeal filed by the PP against the Organic Law 3/2021 on the Regulation of Euthanasia, in the end it will not be like that because the procedure has been suspended in order to resolve the challenges launched by the 'popular' against Campo y Díez.

The law, which was approved last March in the Congress of Deputies with the votes against of PP and Vox, establishes that euthanasia may be carried out on patients who request it and who are in a context of "serious illness , chronic and disabling or serious and incurable illness, causing intolerable suffering".

The appeal, admitted for processing last September with Conde-Pumpido himself as speaker, alleges that the euthanasia law violates several provisions of the Constitution, among which the rights to life and dignity of the person stand out.

The PP also sees a violation of articles 14 of the Magna Carta, which establishes that all Spaniards are equal before the law, and 16, which guarantees the ideological, religious and cult freedom of all individuals and establishes that the public powers will have into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society.

In addition, the Constitutional Court has reported that Campo's abstention will be dealt with in a plenary session next week in a total of 19 matters due to appeals from the Popular Parliamentary Group in the Senate, as well as a recusal incident also related to the former Minister of Justice for 9 issues challenged by 'popular' deputies.

On the agenda there is also an incident of challenge for appeals by PP and Citizens in the Lower House against the former high office of Moncloa for 8 other issues.

Campo and Díez have already abstained -in a decision endorsed by the TC-- from the deliberation of the appeals against the 'law of only yes is yes' and the vote on the labor reform, in the case of the former Minister of Justice, and an appeal related to the 25% quota for Spanish in Catalan classrooms, in the case of Díez.

The Plenary also ratified Campo's abstentions in 7 other matters, due to his previous responsibility in the Council of Ministers and his sentimental relationship with the president of the Congress of Deputies, Meritxell Batet; and of Díez in another resource about 25% of Castilian.

THE REFORM OF SEDITION AND EMBEZZLEMENT

Likewise, in its next conclave the TC will address the challenge incident against Conde-Pumpido, Campo, Díez and María Luisa Segoviano in relation to Vox's appeal against the penal reform that repealed sedition and modified embezzlement.

Vox pointed to Campo for his sentimental relationship with Batet and his previous positions as Minister of Justice and Socialist deputy, considering that he could "have a direct or indirect interest" because it is a law "that his former colleagues in the parliamentary group have approved."

As for Díez, the party singled her out for having "participated directly or indirectly in the matter that is the subject of the lawsuit, due to her status as a high position in the Ministry of the Presidency and being a trusted staff of Minister Félix Bolaños."

Regarding Segoviano, he mentioned his statements "while he was an emeritus magistrate of the Supreme Court." Specifically, when she referred to self-determination in the following terms: "This is a very complex issue, extremely complex. It is a subject with many edges that must be studied."

Lastly, de Conde-Pumpido highlighted his "special ties to the government party" and for "having been a defender or representative of one of the parties or having intervened in a lawsuit as a prosecutor."