The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) vetoes the strike by judges and prosecutors: "It has no regulatory support."

BarcelonaThe plenary session of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has unanimously decided not to recognize the strike called by judges and prosecutors announced by five associations—all except the progressive ones—for next week. Thursday's agreement warns the organizers that the strike has no "legislative support" because the right to strike is not regulated for judges. Therefore, it concludes that "it is not appropriate to announce it," and recalls that it had already issued similar statements regarding the strikes called in 2009, 2012, and 2013. The organizing associations have criticized the decision and have already announced that they will continue the strike, which they consider "a legitimate, proportionate, and responsible measure."

The governing body of the judges made this decision in an extraordinary meeting after the Ministry of the Presidency, Justice, and Parliamentary Relations asked it to comment on the strike planned for next week. This Saturday, judges and prosecutors are also called to gather outside the Supreme Court. Both this protest and the strike called for Tuesday, July 1, Wednesday, July 2, and Thursday, July 3 represent a challenge to the Spanish government for the judicial reforms that are being processed through urgent means. On the one hand, the executive wants modify the system of access to the judicial career to make it less elitistFurthermore, it seeks to reform the Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office. For the associations signing the call, the reforms pose a "threat" to judicial independence and could increase the politicization of the Prosecutor's Office, as reiterated in joint statements by the Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM) (FJI), the Association of Prosecutors (AF), and the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF). The association recognizes that this is a "right of individual ownership, which each person can exercise autonomously." Furthermore, they warn that "any attempt by the employer to condition, obstruct, or coerce the decision" of a worker who wants to strike constitutes a "very serious violation."

The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) agreement was approved unanimously in the section vetoing the strike and by a majority in the rest of the text. In one of the points approved by a majority, the General Council of the Judiciary warns that it will not set minimum services for the strike. However, in the same agreement, the leadership of the judiciary warns that the protest cannot affect any urgent judicial tasks or that, if postponed, they may entail a violation of fundamental rights. Specifically, the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) states, the strike cannot affect the distribution of cases, on-call duty in courts, urgent decisions under investigation, procedures for the protection of fundamental rights, cases involving vulnerable people, and precautionary measures.

In response to this decision not to set minimum services, the associations calling the strike have announced "criteria to guarantee essential care to citizens, without distorting the right to strike." These instructions affect fewer tasks than those mentioned in the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) resolution. For example, in the duty courts, the associations urge the continuation of activities such as those related to detainees and the removal of corpses, but exclude immediate and minor trials conducted by the duty courts, provided they do not affect a detained person.

"Unjustified" process of stabilizing substitutes

Another point of the government's project that has drawn criticism from these associations is the process for stabilized employment for a thousand substitute judges and prosecutors. Initial responses from the associations calling for the strike. While the judicial leadership was meeting, the Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM) shared X posts about previous strikes accompanied by messages such as: "Back then, the right to strike wasn't questioned... What's changed?"