The General Council of the Judiciary has unanimously agreed that the exercise of the right to strike judges and magistrates “lacks, at the present time, of normative support.” Consequently, “it is not appropriate to announce” the call of strikes scheduled for July 1, 2 and 3 by all associations except the progressive. In addition, the organ emphasizes that it has no competence to set minimal services. This is stated by the agreement proposed by the president of the organ, Isabel Perelló, and who has had the support of the entire plenary in the extraordinary session held this Thursday.
A CGPJ spokesman states that the agreement adopted is in the same direction as all those approved in relation to the five strikes that have been held since 2009 and that there have never been sanctions for those who have seconded them.
The ten conservative vowels have also joined a broader version of that same text that supports part of the claims of the promoters of the strikes, while recognizing the judges “the years of dedication and effort invested in overcoming the evidence of access to the judicial career, as well as their professionalism in the exercise of the jurisdictional function in non -always favorable situations.”
That agreement went ahead for 11 of the 21 votes: the ten vowels chosen at the initiative of the PP and President Perelló. Nine progressive members have voted against and another has refrained. The text also includes criticism of the extraordinary stabilization process of judges and substitute prosecutors. Considers the “unjustified” measure and contrary to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court.
“Illegal” call, according to progressives
In parallel, the Plenary has rejected a second document presented by nine of the ten members of the Progressive Group, which described the call as “illegal.” According to his proposal, the CGPJ “should not only refrain from recognizing right or setting essential services, but the corresponding actions should be reserved for the call of a clearly illegal mobilization.”
The law of the Judiciary establishes that the unjustified and continued absence for more than a natural day and less than four of the headquarters of the judicial body in which the judge or magistrate is destined is a slight fault. These types of sanctions can lead to a warning or a fine of up to 500 euros.
In addition, the member Carlos Hugo Preciado, chosen at the initiative to add, has presented a third text that opted to recognize the right to strike of the judges, but has finally retired and has not come to vote, according to the sources consulted. His thesis is that the double nature of the judge must be distinguished, as head of a power and public employee. And that, as a public employee, he has the right to strike.
The precedent of 2009
With this decision, the CGPJ maintains the criteria expressed in 2009, when the first strike of democracy judges was held. Then, the body unanimously affirmed that there was no “legal coverage” for the exercise of the right to strike by the judges. So he did not announce the call and did not set minimal services.
The strike is a fundamental right collected in the Constitution. But in the case of judges and prosecutors it is in a legal limbo because there is no regulatory support that supports it. Nor do it prohibit him. For example, it is the strikers themselves who set the minimum services.
In the five previous calls – with governments of the PP and the PSOE – those who seconded them did not lose the salary corresponding to that day, as happens to the rest of the workers, but it was only reflected for statistical purposes. And it was only citizens and lawyers who paid the consequences of the strikes with the suspension of judgments or other planned judicial actions.
Last Monday, the Ministry of Justice directed by Félix Bolaños sent a trade to the CGPJ in which he pointed out that if the organ chose to not announce the unemployment call – as has finally occurred – he must take “measures” to subtract the salary to “who ceases the provision of the service voluntarily and without a justified cause”. Justice asks the CGPJ for an answer before July 1, when the first of the three days of consecutive strikes is scheduled.
Source: www.eldiario.es
