Thursday, February 2

Unidas Podemos resorts to European justice to remove the Constitutional magistrates with their mandate expired


Unidas Podemos will present a new amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court this Monday morning. It will do so just before the plenary session of this judicial body meets at 10:00 a.m. to decide on the request of the PP to very cautiously suspend the processing of the reform promoted by the Government to unblock the renewal of the aforementioned court with its mandate expired. . The legal modification was approved on Thursday by a large majority in Congress, but it must still be ratified by the Senate in separate votes scheduled for this Tuesday, in committee, and for Thursday, in plenary, and which is still in the air at waiting for the Constitutional decision.

Judges and party: the Constitutional ruling that pushes two magistrates to depart in the appeal of the PP

Plus

In their letter, to which elDiario.es has had access and which has been promoted by Jaume Asens (En Comú) and signed together with Pablo Echenique and Txema Guijarro, Unidas Podemos urges the guarantee court to resort to European justice before decide, at its meeting this Monday, on the recusal presented last week by the confederal group and also by the PSOE against the two magistrates whose mandate has expired so that they refrain from being part of the deliberations on the aforementioned appeal of the PP. They are the current president of the Constitutional Court, Pedro González-Trevijano, and Antonio Narváez, whose mandate ended in June, and who are directly affected by the reform promoted by the Government on which the court has to decide, which precisely seeks to facilitate the replacement of these two magistrates by reducing the majority necessary for the election of their substitutes by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ).

Unidas Podemos recalls in its appeal that the “right to an impartial judge” is established “in article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” and that in the case of Trevijano and Narváez “there is a well-founded presumption of lack of of impartiality” because they have a “direct interest” in the legal reform of the Government appealed by the PP. The confederal group recalls that the modification approved by Congress and voted on by the Senate on Thursday “directly and inevitably affects the magistrates who, if the amparo is not upheld” presented by United We Can and by the PSOE for their recusal, “They will see a law promulgated by which, definitively, they will be separated from their functions even if it is long after their mandates have expired.”

“It is completely unquestionable that whoever has their mandate expired is directly affected by the rule whose processing has been challenged by the appellants [en alusión al PP] and this is so due to the simple fact that if said legal reform is promulgated, they will cease to be members of the Constitutional Court and, therefore, they will lose their current position, emoluments and prerogatives, as well as the power to decide in the sense that they consider or to which have compromised”, adds the text.

Some “facts so simple that it blushes to have to explain them”

The confederal group emphasizes that it is “a unique case in which a State power has in its hands to deprive another State power of its powers, and all this in a case that directly and irremediably affects, both personally and professionally, to a series of members of the body itself called upon to resolve the matter”.

“The facts are so simple that it blushes to have to explain them,” adds Unidas Podemos, which insists that the suspension of the processing of the government reform requested by the PP “directly, personally and professionally affects some members of the Constitutional Court and, This being so unquestionable, said affected members, who continue to form part of the Tribunal that will rule on the claim, do not seem to doubt that the obligation of impartiality that also affects them is not applicable to the present case, omitting that, in reality, it is an impedimentary cause of their respective participations in the resolution of this specific procedure”.

However, the confederal group considers that “bearing in mind” the Spanish legislation that establishes that “the judge or magistrate in whom any of the legally established causes concurs will refrain from hearing the matter without waiting for him to be challenged” it is necessary that for part of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) establishes whether this abstention “has to be automatic or not so as not to conflict with the provisions established in article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ”.

Unidas Podemos also wants European justice to clarify whether the “breach of this duty to abstain places the affected procedure in a channel of nullity of actions” as has been consolidated in the jurisprudence of the CJEU itself, or if “it must be understood that a judge or magistrate who is called upon to decide on the continuation or not of the parliamentary processing of a Law that, if promulgated, would entail its definitive cessation as such, is involved in a cause of loss of impartiality and, therefore, before the obligation to abstain to decide on said lawsuit or matter”.

Salaries of up to 160,000 euros per year

“Should it be understood that some judges or magistrates whose mandates have expired and who receive salaries of between 143,686 euros and 160,728 euros per year and who are called upon to resolve on the continuation or not of the parliamentary processing of a Law that, if enacted, would entail the definitive loss of their status as judges or magistrates and of that income, they continue to preserve the appearance of impartiality or, on the contrary, they are automatically involved in a cause of loss of impartiality and, therefore, faced with the obligation to refrain from resolving about said lawsuit or matter?”, asks United We Can to clarify the European justice.

The confederal group also recalls that “except for errors or omissions, there is no lawsuit within the European Union that has allowed the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on a case in which those who are called upon to resolve it are, at At the same time, addressees of an essential part of the norm whose parliamentary processing is intended to be suspended”.

For Unidas Podemos, “the affectation of the right contained in article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is of such intensity in the present case that it requires an exhaustive interpretation of the national rules of application so that the present procedure does not come into conflict with the law of the Union or run through a course that deprives the legitimate representatives of popular sovereignty of their rights to political participation through the undue restriction of their own powers as legislators”.

For all these reasons, the confederal group considers that since the Constitutional Court is “a body that closes the system of appeals in the field of domestic law and, therefore, since there is no internal appeal, it is necessary that the Court of Justice of the Union European Union to rule on the correct interpretation of the internal rules when their application can lead to the infringement of one or more of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is a rule of primary law of the Union ”.

“Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is called upon, and qualified, to provide the correct interpretation of the internal rules which, as in the case at hand, come into direct collision with those contained in the already cited article 47. of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”, ditch.



www.eldiario.es