Lawyer of the Courts and member of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) by the share of jurists, Isabel Revuelta has been one of the four vowels designated for the working group to which the proposal to reform the reform of the reform of the reform of the reform of the reform of the reform of the … Election system of the twelve judges who, together with the eight jurists, are part of this body. About to meet the legal term, and given the irreconcilable differences between conservatives and progressive around parliamentary intervention in this process, both blocks chose this week to send two antagonistic proposals to the Government and Parliament. “A historical opportunity has been lost” to put a single proposal on the table, says Revuelta, who considers that of the progressive group does not respect European standards.
-The Bolaños Minister has supported this week the parliamentary election of the twelve judges of the CGPJ. Do you think that at some point there has been a real will in the government to change the current model?
-I do not know. I only know what I have spoken with the vowels of the Council.
-I say it because when Pons and Bolaños signed this agreement in June, the next day there were already different interpretations on the additional provision entrusted to them by this proposal.
-Itend the will of the legislator, which is the result of a pact and is embodied in the additional provision whose mandate is very clear. It establishes transparent and concise parameters for the proposal that must be sent to the Government, Congress and the Senate. The Council, the only recipient of the additional provision, had to send a proposal respectful of judicial independence.
-However, they present two diametrically opposite. One eliminates parliamentary intervention and the other, far from depoliticizing the organ, attributes more iron control to judicial vowels. Isn’t it a step back?
-He is clear that there are different sensibilities about what the legitimacy of origin of the members of the Council should be. There is a group of vowels that consider that this legitimacy of origin must be exclusively the democratic and there is another group of vowels, we, who believe that, together with democratic legitimacy, with the eight jurist vowels, there must also be another legitimacy of origin, That of the vowels judges, who have to be chosen by their peers, as European institutions indicate unanimously in their standards.
-Then the proposal of the progressive group is a step back regarding those European standards …
-After then we do not consider it according to European standards, which are very clear, are very defined and constantly repeat: the vowels of origin or the judicial shift of the Council must be chosen by their peers without interference of the political powers.
-The Plenary agreed to raise the two proposals to the Venice Commission, what do you think will say?
-It will compare the proposals with the standards that she recommends and issue her opinion, but we have to be clear that the Venice Commission is not dedicated to settle internal disputes between states.
-If I said that the proposal of the progressives does not meet those standards, what would happen?
-The standards are not binding, they are part of what is called ‘Soft Law’, they are not norms of positive law although the European Union has been establishing ways to ensure that it has an indirect but solid efficacy. The report on the rule of law has been systematically warning us since 2021. He says “immediately after renewal, undertakes a process of legislative review on the election of judicial vowels” and that election must comply with European norms. In the case of the Greco Group they have been telling us that in Spain there is a problem with the perception of politicalization of justice. And this problem very worries the European institutions of the Council of Europe and the European Union. And also the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The politicalization risks of which the Constitutional Court warned in 1986 have been fulfilled. In view, we have been six years with a political blockade without being able to renew.
-Do you feel conditioned by the fact that the PP proposed it?
-I was chosen by a majority of three fifths of the Senate and, therefore, I feel legitimized by the Chamber that must grant legitimacy to my appointment. This is the only link that I have with those cameras, apart from professionally proceeding from the body of lawyers of the General Courts.
-It is the feeling that a encounter has been avoided between the two blocks. The fact that they have unanimously agreed that there is no agreement sounds like that it is convenient to be able to face the next appointments, a non -aggression pact.
-It has to do with the nature of this advice, which is a advice that wants to build, not to deconstruct.
-And has not lost a chance to build?
-A historical opportunity has been lost to present a single proposal on the choice of judicial vowels because it is the first time that the legislator incorporates European recommendations into a positive law norm (additional provision) making them binding for the recipients of the mandate , that we are the members of this Council.
-It said that there is a problem with the perception of politicalization of justice. Do you think the government is influencing that lack of appearance of impartiality with its attacks on the Judiciary?
-The Independence of the Judiciary, as the Court of Justice of the European Union says, is the cornerstone of the rule of law. And from the Council we will continue to fight why there is still that independence.
#Isabel #Revuelta #historical #opportunity #lost #present #single #proposal #choice #vowels
