The CGPJ will be unable on Wednesday to present a unique proposal on its choice system

The law gave the new Council six months to prepare “a report that examines European systems in the election of the members of the Magistracy Councils analogous to the Spanish CGPJ” and to present a proposal to reform the model of choice of the vowels of the vowels of Judicial origin (which are 12 of the 20) approved by a majority of three fifths of the plenary, that is, by at least 13 vowels. That proposal had to guarantee the «independence»Of those 12 vowels with the” direct participation “of judges and magistrates according to the European standards and would later be transferred to the Government, the Congress of Deputies and the Senate” in order for the holders of the legislative initiative to submit it to the consideration of the General Courts for their debate and, where appropriate, processing and approval».

The mere writing of this text already gave rise to different interpretations by the negotiators, the popular Esteban González Pons and the Minister of the Branch, the socialist Félix Bolaños, who already dropped that neither the Executive nor the Legislative were going to feel linked by the proposal of the CGPJ, because the last word They would have them.

Although conservative and progressive collected the glove of this legal mandate since October, with the constitution of a working group composed of two representatives of each block and have been able to fulfill the first part of the commission -the comparative analysis between countries with Organs similar to our CGPJ-, the differences between both groups on the role of Parliament in the choice of the vowels judges seem irreconcilable. Thus, while those proposed by the Popular Party consider that Parliament does not have to participate in the election of the twelve members of the CGPJ of judicial origin -in the line of European recommendations, propose direct election by the race through a Open lista system- those proposed by the PSOE refuse to strip the governing body of the judges of «parliamentary legitimacy».

Career participation

In this sense, sources of this group point to ABC that they are willing to talk about the process of judicial participation in the election of these vowels judges, but in no case suppress the “parliamentary guarantee.” «This is inalienable»They sentence.

To this is added the discomfort that has caused in this group the fact that conservatives take to the plenary session on Wednesday a written proposal that they have not agreed with them and that, as this newspaper has reported on Tuesday, goes to leave the election of the judges in the hands of the race without parliamentary intervention. The Courts would have weight instead in the choice of OTHER VOCALSthe jurists, as established in article 122 of the Constitution.

From the conservative group, however, the progressives are blamed for having risen from the table after Christmas and have closed in band to any type of conciliatory proposal between both blocks. The brief presented by the Government Chamber of the Supreme, which gave two options: the direct election of the twelve vowels of judicial origin without parliamentary intervention (in which the proposal that this Wednesday carries the group has materialized this Wednesday conservative) a formula in which at least 8 of the 12 judicial members had to obtain the endorsement of the Courts «No margin to discretion». They ensure that the progressives remained in studying this proposal, but that on the return of vacation, and without giving explanations, they broke the negotiations in January.

Thus, and since the legal mandate cannot be fulfilled, there are vowels that suggest that the CGPJ unanimously approves a report containing the study of the different European models and two different proposals to make it the legislator who chooses . Others are in favor of expanding that period from six months to «some more days or weeks»For the sake of achieving an agreement to submit that only proposal referred to by the additional provision. This second group of vowels recognizes the difficulty of finding a common denominator when there is a basic discrepancy: the participation or not of the Courts in the choice of these vowels judges.