The State Council supports the Law on the Change of Access of the New Judges who criticized the Judiciary and the Associations | Spain

The Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, continues with his judicial reforms, which are receiving important criticisms in some sectors, especially conservativesand since Friday also has an important guarantee, that of the State Council, for one of them, which changes in depth the Access of the new judges – the oppositions are reinforced and access is streamlined by the so -called fourth shiftthis is the direct entry of renowned jurists. The State Council has issued a report, to which the country has had access, which in summary clearly supports the reform with some recommendations of changes that do not affect the heart of the modifications that had been highly criticized by the Judiciary, especially by its president, Isabel Perelló, and by several judicial associations, which defended the current system.

Perelló, a progressive magistrate recently chosen by an agreement of the Executive and the PP that, however, is very clearly facing Bolaños, said in January, when the reform was known, that the current system « It guarantees that any person, of any origin and social origin and whatever their ideology, can compete on equal terms supported exclusively in their individual effort » and received The support of all associations except yours, judges for democracy. The CGPJ issued a critical report, although much softer than the one that was initially raised. However, the State Council does not see problem in any of the central elements of the reform, and some even expressly applaud them.

For example, the CGPJ questioned the regulation that the law contemplates to consolidate the situation of hundreds of substitute judges, a bag now composed of 913 people – more than 70% women – who, in some cases, have been more than two decades exercising as judges chaining temporary contracts. For the CGPJ, the justification offered by the government « does not seem to accommodate » to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that these types of processes should only be used in an « exceptional situation. » The State Council supports the reform clearly by pointing out that « the exceptionality of the anomalous situation of temporary employment in the administration of justice lies, in that such a situation it opposes and is manifestly mismatched with respect to the criteria that have to govern employment in the administration of justice. » « The State Council positively values ​​that a route has been undertaken that is proposed to make vigorously in front of the irregular temporary employment situation that occurs in the field of administration of justice, » he concludes.

Unlike the most critical judicial associations, the State Council does not see any problem in changing the oppositions, which will now not only value the memoristic capacity of the applicants but more criteria. The associations said that the current model allows to « identify, with objectivity, the merit and capacity » of the applicants. The State Council supports the change and ensures that « the draft expresses its firm commitment to prevail other skills, in addition to the memoristics, understanding that the latter do not allow to assess equally necessary skills for the exercise of jurisdictional functions. »

Other of the most controversial issues, the limitations, incompatibilities and authorization prior to opposition trainers, which have become a big business, also remains supported by the State Council report. « Regardless of the valuation that is made of that preparation activity for access to the judicial career and its relationship with the functions performed by the judges and magistrates, this council understands that the draft introduces points and details to the legal regime applicable to the incompatibilities of judges and magistrates, without being appreciated defects in the way in which it does, » he says.

Another of the controversial issues that the text endorses is the change in the composition of the Judicial Ethics Commission, which this reform expands, from seven to nine members, reducing (from six to five) the judges and increasing (from one to four) the academics of other areas. In addition, the latter will be chosen by the Courts, instead of the judges members, as until now. « Within the diversity of solutions that can be applied to the designation of the members of an organ of that type, this council understands that the formula collected in the draft is part of the decision margin that is available in this regard, without there being data to object or to suggest a different solution that is deemed preferable, » says the report.

And finally, it also supports the prohibition of private financing to judicial associations. “The option for a general prohibition of private donations to judicial associations is clearly linked to the concern of the independence of these associations and the possible repercussions that these private donations could have on the independence of the associated judges and magistrates. The option chosen by the draft is part of the margin of decision that the legislator has in that matter, so that no objection is made respect, ”he finishes.

On the contrary, the State Council claims changes that do not affect the heart of the norm and that the Government has incorporated to take it on Tuesday to the Council of Ministers, such as the need to review the non -organic character of certain precepts that in the project appears in the form of an organic law or not allow people who have an “equivalent degree” to the degree in law can assert it for any form of access to the judiciary or prosecution.