In a significant political maneuver, Bolaños has reaffirmed his veto against Pablo Lucas’s candidacy to preside over the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), despite widespread acknowledgment that Lucas is the sole candidate capable of achieving consensus among the various factions. This decision underscores the complexities of Spanish politics, where ideological divides and strategic considerations often overshadow pragmatic solutions. Bolaños’s stance reflects not only a commitment to his party’s principles but also a broader struggle within the judiciary’s leadership, raising questions about the future direction of the CGPJ and the implications for judicial independence in Spain. As tensions mount, the decision highlights the ongoing challenges of governance and the delicate balance between political interests and institutional integrity.
A significant meeting took place yesterday in Madrid, where a substantial portion of the twenty members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) convened to address urgent procedural matters. However, the session merely reaffirmed the ongoing vetoes between the two factions of councilors—ten progressives and ten conservatives—preventing any consensus on the institution’s presidency. Throughout August, there have been ongoing discussions between the two sides aimed at finding common ground before the Opening of the Judicial Year, presided over by the King on September 5. Unfortunately, a sense of despair and resignation has permeated the Council, as the entrenched positions of both sides hinder the endorsement of any of the seven initially nominated magistrates.
Sources from the conservative bloc express frustration over the Government’s intransigence, mainly targeting Félix Bolaños, the Minister of the Presidency and Justice. Bolaños has insisted on appointing either High Court judges Pilar Teso or Ana Ferrer, both viewed as closely aligned with the Executive. Neither candidate has managed to secure the twelve votes needed in preliminary rounds prior to August. What’s particularly striking to the conservatives is the continued veto against Pablo Lucas Murillo de la Cueva. This progressive judge stands out as the only candidate capable of garnering sufficient support from PP-endorsed judges. According to sources, this veto is not just blocking progress but also fostering a growing discontent within a Council that has yet to fully commence its duties.
The conservative faction has raised concerns about Teso’s perceived “strong dependence” on Cándido Conde-Pumpido, the president of the Constitutional Court. They argue that her appointment would signify a “camouflaged presidency” where Conde-Pumpido would exert control from behind the scenes. This dynamic, they contend, is a non-negotiable demand from the Government to ensure that both the TS and the Supreme Court operate in concert, particularly in light of the 123 appointments that will reshape the leadership across various judicial bodies over the next three years. As these developments unfold, sources maintain that the Government’s goal is not to foster consensus but to significantly realign judicial leadership in Spain with trusted allies and like-minded individuals.
Read more: PSOE MP and former military officer Zaida Cantera resigns from her seat in Congress
Ana Ferrer’s situation mirrors the complexities surrounding the CGPJ presidency. Recently, she has begun to diverge from the majority opinions within the Criminal Chamber, a shift that sources suggest is an attempt to align herself with the socialist government after several years of relative obscurity in La Moncloa. Even if she does not ascend to the presidency of the CGPJ, she is viewed by Bolaños as the preferred candidate to lead the Criminal Chamber once Manuel Marchena steps down in November after two consecutive terms.
Last July, Ferrer made headlines by publicly supporting the amnesty of Carles Puigdemont, the president of Junts, for the crime of misappropriation of public funds. Her reasoning echoed the arguments used by the left-leaning majority of the Constitutional Court, which had previously supported pardons for former Andalusian government officials convicted in the fraudulent ERE scandal. Ferrer argued that failing to amnesty Puigdemont for embezzlement defied “all barriers of logic.”
This stance has raised significant concerns among Supreme Court judges, particularly in light of Puigdemont’s recent complaint to the CGPJ against Judge Pablo Llarena. Puigdemont alleges that Llarena has deliberately delayed the resolution of his appeals against the refusal to grant him amnesty. This situation has prompted questions about the impartiality of a CGPJ led by someone sympathetic to the government, with fears that a politically aligned president could initiate disciplinary actions against judges like Llarena, who are simply performing their duties.
The newly formed governing body of judges began its term on July 25, following a last-minute agreement between the PSOE and PP, spurred by pressure from the European Commission after more than five years of deadlock in renewing the council. During this meeting, the Supreme Court magistrates Esperanza Córdoba, Antonio del Moral, Ana Ferrer, Ángeles Huet, Carmen Lamela, Pablo Lucas, and Pilar Teso were proposed as presidential candidates. However, none has yet secured the necessary twelve votes for confirmation.
Pablo Lucas, the only progressive candidate who is seen favorably by the conservative members of the Council, brings considerable experience to the table. He holds a law degree from the University of Deusto and a PhD from the University of Bologna, having served as a judge in the Supreme Court’s Third Chamber since 2001. Lucas has been a member of the Governing Chamber since 2013 and has overseen prior judicial control over the National Intelligence Centre since 2009.
An accomplished author and expert in personal data protection, judicial constitutional order, and electoral law, Lucas is recognized within the Supreme Court for his independent judgment, even amid political pressures. Sources indicate that La Moncloa’s preference leans towards appointing female judges with a more pronounced political profile, who may appear more amenable. In contrast, Lucas’s extensive background includes serving as the Deputy Director General of Publications and Documentation at the Centre for Constitutional Studies and as a member of the Central Electoral Board. He has also held the position of head of the Office of the President of the CGPJ, further enhancing his understanding of the governing body’s inner workings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Félix Bolaños?
Félix Bolaños is the Minister of the Presidency and Justice in Spain. He plays a crucial role in judicial appointments and has been vocal about his preferences for candidates to lead the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ).
What is the CGPJ?
The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is Spain’s governing body for the judiciary. It is responsible for overseeing the appointment and discipline of judges and ensuring judicial independence.
Why has Bolaños vetoed Pablo Lucas?
Bolaños has reaffirmed his veto against Pablo Lucas despite Lucas being seen as the only candidate who could achieve consensus between the progressive and conservative factions within the CGPJ. Bolaños favors candidates more aligned with the government’s ideology.
What are the implications of this veto?
The veto has resulted in a deadlock within the CGPJ, preventing the council from moving forward with its work. It raises concerns about judicial independence and the potential for political influence over judicial appointments.
What background does Pablo Lucas have?
Pablo Lucas is an experienced Supreme Court judge with a law degree from the University of Deusto and a PhD from the University of Bologna. He has served in various capacities within the judiciary, including prior judicial control over the National Intelligence Centre.
Why do some factions support Pablo Lucas?
Lucas is regarded as a candidate who could bridge the ideological divide between progressives and conservatives, potentially allowing for a more balanced and effective leadership of the CGPJ.
What are the government’s preferred candidates?
The government has expressed a preference for judges like Pilar Teso and Ana Ferrer, who are perceived as more politically aligned with the Executive, despite their inability to secure the necessary votes for the presidency.
What happens next for the CGPJ?
The ongoing stalemate raises questions about how the CGPJ will function without a confirmed president, especially with significant judicial appointments looming in the near future.
How does this situation affect judicial independence in Spain?
The situation has sparked concerns that the government’s influence could undermine the autonomy of the judiciary, as political considerations may take precedence over judicial merit and independence.
Conclusion
Bolaños’s reaffirmation of his veto against Pablo Lucas’s candidacy for the presidency of the CGPJ highlights the ongoing tension within Spanish politics regarding judicial appointments. Despite Lucas’s potential to unify the fragmented factions of the council, Bolaños’s decision underscores a broader strategy to maintain ideological alignment within the judiciary. This impasse not only hinders the functionality of the CGPJ but also raises pressing concerns about judicial independence and the influence of political interests on the judiciary’s integrity. As the stalemate continues, the implications for Spain’s judicial system and governance remain profound, potentially shaping the future of judicial leadership and its relationship with the government. The challenge ahead lies in navigating these divisions to foster a more cohesive and independent judicial framework.
