Europe again scolds Spain for "politicizing" the judiciary
The Spanish government ignores the Venice Commission's recommendations to change the CGPJ election model.
MadridThe Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional law, published a report this Monday criticizing Spain for its election model for the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ). Currently, it considers that Spain is exposed to external politicization—due to the influence of the Spanish Parliament—and internal politicization—due to the role of judicial associations—which jeopardizes judicial independence.
What is the current model?
A preselection and final approval by Congress and the Senate
What's under discussion is how the 12 members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) from judicial backgrounds are chosen. Currently, six are elected in Congress and six in the Senate, from a preselection of 36 candidates. These candidates are pre-selected in a vote of the members of the judiciary themselves, and the candidates must have the endorsement of 30 of their peers or a judicial association. In the legislative chambers, they are elected if they achieve a three-fifths majority, that is, if they agree with the PSOE and PP. This system has been in place since 1985.
What does the Venice Commission say?
It does not comply with the rule of election between judges
The Venice Commission does not endorse this model. "The subsequent election phase cannot be a political election, not even with a qualified majority," it warns in its report, because it does not comply with the European Commission's standard requiring judges from judicial sources to be chosen by the judges themselves. Regarding this model, this Council of Europe body considers that preselection is "insufficient," that the Spanish Parliament has "broad discretion" in its selection, and that it lacks mechanisms to avoid deadlock—if one of the two parties refuses to negotiate, the CGPJ could remain in office forever, as occurred during the previous term.
The Spanish government defends it.
Bolaños continues to support this "guaranteeing independence"
Despite warnings from Europe, the Spanish Ministry of Justice, led by Félix Bolaños, reiterated its commitment to this model. In its opinion, the system "has ensured judicial independence and guaranteed that decisions are made by qualified majority." However, the main problem European bodies see is that the Spanish judiciary is politicized, and this can affect both judicial independence and impartiality.
The model defended by the right
An election exclusively among the judges themselves
The alternative system advocated by the judicial right and the People's Party (PP) is to eliminate the final election for Congress and the Senate. Candidates must gather 25 endorsements or be supported by a judicial association, and then there are judicial elections in which more than one candidate can be voted for.
What does the Venice Commission say?
There is a risk of politicization due to the weight of the associations
The Venice Commission maintains that this model meets the requirement that judicial members be chosen by the judges themselves, but warns of the risk of internal politicization due to the influence of judicial associations. Furthermore, it considers it "restrictive" that candidates must have 25 years of experience, as this can lead to "corporatism" and "resistance to reform."
In their report, the experts propose that elections be open, that no endorsements be required to run, and that each voter be able to choose only one candidate. This reinforces equal opportunities between members and independents. It also proposes equal access to information and funding.
