This Friday, Sumar will file a complaint before the Supreme Court against the interim president of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), Vicente Guilarte, and the conservative members of the organization for their "unacceptable interference" in the legislative function of Congress, by authorizing and participating in the extraordinary plenary session that led to the institutional declaration against the Amnesty Law.
Specifically, the complaint of the parliamentary group, to which Europa Press has had access, accuses these members of the governing body of the judges of incurring an alleged crime of administrative prevarication, which entails disqualification from holding public office, for promoting a resolution "illegal", "arbitrary" and that exceeds the powers of the CGPJ.
The Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts, Félix Bolaños, distanced himself from the complaint this morning and stated that he wants to "build bridges" in this new stage in which he is in charge of the Justice portfolio, a position in which will make "the greatest possible effort" to renew the CGPJ, which has had an expired mandate for five years and will do so with "maximum dialogue."
Guilarte himself, one of the defendants, has expressed himself in a similar way before meeting precisely with Bolaños. The president of the governing body of the judges has described the complaint as a "political maneuver" that "does not make much sense" when "we are looking for forms of pacification, renewal and consensus" to renew the CGPJ, something that, in his opinion, should occur "not this legislature but this year."
On the other hand, the deputy secretary of Social Policies of the PP, Carmen Fúnez, has assured that the complaint is an example of the "misgovernment" that exists in Spain with Pedro Sánchez and has stressed that Sumar is part of the Executive and, therefore, is the Government that files that complaint.
The complaint is directed against its eight promoters, members Carmen Llombart, José Antonio Ballestero, Gerardo Martínez-Tristán, Juan Manuel Fernández, Juan Martínez Moya, José María Macías, Nuria Díaz Abad and María Ángeles Carmona.
Also against Wenceslao Olea - who voted in favor - and points to Guilarte, the president, who chose to vote blank, as a necessary cooperator in allowing the convening of said plenary session in which these jurists launched their resolution against the future law of amnesty. That is, they formulate their complaint against the ten conservative members of the CGPJ.
In fact, Sumar attributes to the promoters of that declaration arrogating powers that correspond exclusively to the Constitutional Court, by ruling on a bill when the regulatory text did not even exist or was registered.
What's more, he complains in his complaint that his intention was to send citizens "an apocalyptic message that can only contribute to greater social tension," especially when it was given an institutional character.
Specifically, the complaint refers to the approval on November 6 in a plenary session of the institutional declaration of the CGPJ against the amnesty that PSOE, Sumar, ERC and Junts were then negotiating to invest Pedro Sánchez as president of the Government, warning that its application would mean the "abolition" of the rule of law.
Sumar highlights that this resolution "disqualifies and imputes very serious conduct" to the head of the Executive, which could be classified as "disconsideration between institutions", even contradicting what the CGPJ states in its previous resolutions regarding the Judiciary.
"Extremely serious statements that are unrelated to its legal nature and that turn the agreement (...) into an act of partisan political criticism, deliberately going beyond the nature of the body and the administrative act of the agreement," explains the parliamentary group that, Also, it questions the legal basis that was followed to convene that plenary session of the judicial body.
The parliamentary group states in its brief that in said plenary session the functions of the governing body of the judges were exceeded, which are also limited by the situation of expired mandate, and delves into the fact that the accused members acted from their "deliberate desire to avoid" that lack of competence, despite the fact that they are jurists with authority status because they are part of one of the main institutions of the State.
Likewise, in the case of the president, he highlights that his mission is to ensure that all members of the organization comply with the functions of the CGPJ, which in no case includes evaluating the "conduct of another State authority" (in this case the president). , political agreements or "future" norms.
On the other hand, Sumar highlights that it is "unavoidable" that the plenary agreement of November 6 reflects his decision to interfere in an issue that affects the "general interests" by issuing a "definitive resolution" and cannot be considered a "political act." ".
In line, he highlights that one of the members, the progressive Álvaro Cuesta, requested that this plenary session be called off after previously warning that it was "inadmissible" and "illegal", and chose not to attend when it was held.
And he even argues that the media stated that the interim president himself saw the institutional declaration as "premature", that respect for judicial independence made it appropriate to avoid that pronouncement in the face of a non-existent legal initiative and that it implied an institutional position in favor of an option. policy.
