The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the judges against the body that regulates them, the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) due to the workload that the members of the judicial career have.
The Social Chamber of the high court has certified in a ruling that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to regulate the workload of judges and magistrates for occupational health purposes, as established in the occupational risk plan.
The court has partially upheld the appeal filed by the judicial associations Judges and Judges for Democracy, Judges and Magistrates Francisco de Vitoria, Judicial Professional and Independent Judicial Forum and condemns the CGPJ to regulate the workload in the career judicial for the aforementioned purposes.
The ruling, which annuls another from the National Court, establishes that the CGPJ has not complied with the provision entrusted to it by the regulation on how to establish the work modules.
He points out that “the conclusion seems clear: the CGPJ has only provisionally, and not definitively, established the workload of the judicial career for occupational health purposes. Or, if you prefer, it is still in the process of regulating the workload of the judicial career for professional health purposes.”
It adds that it has not yet established the definitive modules, regardless of the features and characteristics that the latter are going to have, regardless of the fact that the definitive determination of the workload for these purposes must, in turn, be subject to review. and permanent and continuous improvement, "as it is a process of dynamic construction and never completely finished."
The Chamber resolves that the CGPJ cannot be ordered to regulate the workload in accordance with a criterion of dedication or performance adequate for the identification of psychosocial risks of the members of the judicial career, and that it also takes into account, the personal circumstances and the body, as proposed by the plaintiffs.
Likewise, it rejects that the CGPJ has to make such regulation within a period of three months, as requested in the lawsuit, since the occupational risk plan by which they must be governed does not establish any deadline to comply with the forecast. to regulate the workload for the indicated purposes.
