The CGPJ warns of the “lack of suitability” of the reform of Bolaños that “weakens judicial independence”

The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) will approve in its Plenary of Wednesday a report on the draft Organic Law for “the extension and strengthening of the judicial and fiscal careers” that warns of “the lack of suitability” of some measures. Thus, on the incorporation of substitute judges and prosecutors, it warns that the absence of rigor in the evidence can «weaken judicial independence», While on the reform of the ‘fourth turn’ warns that a” discriminatory “criterion is introduced.

The text, to which Europa Press has had access, will be ratified in the conclave planned for March 19, according to the sources of the government body of the judges consulted by this news agency.

The document maintains that in the draft “certain draft innovations stand out and that they can generate doubts about the lack of suitability of any of the projected measures to achieve the objectives pursued by the legislator, both for reasons of legislative technique and for the objectives that the reform wants to achieve.”

Specifically, it is shown against the “extraordinary stabilization of temporary employment in judicial and fiscal careers”, designed to facilitate the incorporation of substitute judges and prosecutors and substitute magistrates, considering that there is no “exceptional situation” required by the constitutional jurisprudence to adopt this measure.

“It would demand that the proposed solution effectively determine the end of the situations of temporality in the judicial and fiscal careers and the consequent definitive improvement of the current situation, which (…) is not guaranteed that it may be solved, since the proposal itself includes the maintenance of non -professional substitutions,” he says.

In substantive, he criticizes that in the opposition phase it is dispensed with “of the elaboration of a agenda and oral and written exercises, which are the exercises that allow, in the free opposition system configured by the draft, to value the knowledge of the applicant on the legal matters, contemplating, on the contrary, as a single evidence to be developed in that phase, the one consisting of a practical opinion related to a specific case.

«If the concrete test or tests that are performed They are not rigorous enoughthere is a risk that this exceptional appeal may show a resignation to the objective verification of the knowledge that the aspiring judge possesses on legal matters, or, at least, a renunciation that this verification will be carried out in substantially similar terms to those that were always considered and considered suitable to measure the legal knowledge of those who aspire to enter the judicial career by the judicial career by the judicial career by the judge.

In line, he affirms that «that resignation can weakens the independence of the Judiciaryunderstood as the independence of each of the judges, judges, magistrates and magistrates in the concrete exercise of their jurisdictional function ».

And this, “explains,” because, “without disregarding the undoubted value of the experience in professional practice, the imprecision in the type of evidence proposed by the preliminary draft can reduce the guarantee that they are really chosen to perform that function those that are the greatest knowledgeable of the law and, therefore, those that in better conditions are to make the independence of the members of the Judiciary.”

Fourth turn

The report is also pronounced on access for the ‘Fourth Shift’, which allows the entry to the judicial career to law graduates who have been in a contest-opposition for 10 years.

Consider that the draft “Modifies in significant aspects” Access to the judicial career when setting, among other issues, that the number of places to be convened “may not be lower than the equivalent of one third of those offered for access by the free shift”, which “means a clear increase with respect to the current legislative forecast”; and by establishing that those who enter the career in this way will be recognized for all purposes five years of services provided in the category of judge in the jurisdictional order for which they would have accessed.

This report concludes that “this five -year recognition of services introduces a factor that could be considered discriminatory, to the detriment of those who have reached the category of magistrate by promotion from that of Judge, which is not justified.”

Adaptation period

Likewise, it emphasizes that the change in access evidence “implies an important limitation of the faculties until now granted to the Selection Commission and involves the danger of petrifying the way of access to judicial and fiscal careers by greatly hindering the possible adaptations that could be made in the different calls in the future.”

It affects that “Without sufficient adaptation time” The primary access system is “seriously harmed” because the opposition body is not prepared for a change of this draft. Consequently, it recommends that, if this change is approved, “a period of ‘sufficient legis legis (4 or 5 years) should also be considered for adaptation.”

Regarding that the judges and judges in practices are maintained provide support and reinforcement services, it points out that “it may be the time to rethink” if they have to be forced-after overcoming the initial training-to exercise “with all the responsibilities and in the same extension” as judges and magistrates.

He considers that «to provide full jurisdictional capacity to judges and judges who are not yet, being available to the president of the corresponding TSJ, who must prepare a report on the dedication and performance in the performance of their functions, for its assessment by the Judicial School, it implies a Merma of its independencebecause in these conditions, jurisdiction cannot be exercised with identical amplitude to that of the holders of the judicial body ».

Thus, it recommends eliminating the aforementioned phase of reinforcement and replacement, being able to lengthen, in compensation, the phase of practices protected in different courts and courts.

It also points out the fact that the draft eliminates “any mention to the theoretical training that until now is also part of the formation of future judges and judges” and recommends keeping it in this phase.

Apart, defends that «it should be maintained as a central access to the judicial career the Free Shift Accessby the category of judge, without being able to configure as an egalitarian route of access to the judicial career, access by the category of magistrate, thus avoiding a call disconnected from vacancies and public service needs ».

Finally, it recriminates that the draft “configures a commission of judicial ethics that contrasts with international and European standards” by providing “a broad participation of members outside the Judiciary (…) and their parliamentary election.”

Along the same lines, AFEA entrusted to the Center for Legal Studies (CEJ) “to carry out training activities for the preparation of the selective process to access the judicial or fiscal career.” For the CGPJ, the preparation of the oppositions, “to the extent that it concerns directly to the public interest,” should fall on “a fully independent authority or organ.” And the Judiciary should have “a notable role,” complete.