If conservative and progressive agreements of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) are agreed in the lack of understanding Between both blocks to move forward a single proposal on the model of choice of their vowels. This reflected this … Wednesday in the extraordinary plenary session of the Council, in which a report that will deliver to the Government and the Parliament was approved unanimously with the antagonistic proposals of both groups about the system that they understand as more ideal to guarantee the participation of the judges in the designation of his twelve representatives in the CGPJwhich make up another eight jurists.
The members complied with the commission of the additional provision entrusted to them by this task, agreed last June in the PSOE and PP renewal agreement, but they did so Without respecting the exact terms of his writing – which spoke of a single proposal – and without the intention of confrontation before the horizon of appointments that remain ahead. Not in vain the vowels know that this It is not his battle and that the last word will be the legislator. Hence, this hot potato will go to another without further delay or need for ask for extensions of deadlines for the agreement.
And is that the views of both blocks They are irreconcilable: While conservatives consider that to guarantee the true independence of the vowels of judicial origin, Parliament must be outside the process, the progressives not only endorse the parliamentary legitimacy of the organ, but also raise a control of the Courts on the twelve vowels Judges even more strong than that existing in the current model, as can be seen from the proposal to which ABC has had access. «The General Council of Judiciary is A constitutional body in which social and judicial plurality should be embodied. Our opinion is that judicial plurality is represented through judicial vowels; However, social plurality It is more extensive And he needs the participation of Parliament to be reflected in his composition, ”they say.
At the moment the Parliament participates both in the election of the eight jurists (four per congress and four by the Senate) and in that of the twelve judges (six for each chamber) on a previous list of candidates leaked by the Judges associations or guarantee system. However, it is only the eight jurists who appear in commission before the respective Chamber. Not so the judges, to whom the parliament is limited to choosing on that list of half a hundred candidates.
However, the proposal made by the progressive vowels of the Council is that these twelve judges have to submit to an interview Under the same conditions as the eight jurists, an approach to which the conservative sector of the Council does not give credit, since it considers that it is a step back regarding the demands marked by Europe.
After defending an open lista system in which the entire race participates and guarantees the presence of all judicial categories (two Supreme Magistrates, six magistrates and four judges), the progressives propose that once the results lists are made, the results lists, This will rise to Congress and to the Senate for each camera to choose from among the six -member candidacies. “For this,” he continues, “the appearance of each candidate in a public audience will be carried out, in which will expose your curriculum and an action program ». Congress and Senate «must respect in their choice the principle of balanced representation between women and men, Maintain a balance Among the different associations, avoiding exclusions and overrepresentations, and take into account territorial plurality ».
#progressive #sector #CGPJ #twelve #judicial #vowels #exceed #interview #Congress
