"There is no debate". This clear and concise statement comes from a source from the progressive blog of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), which defends word for word what the president of the body, Vicente Guilarte, said last week, about the possibility that Judges can be subpoenaed to testify before congressional investigative committees to talk about judicial processes in which they have participated.
Together and ERC insist that judges and prosecutors are obliged to appear if they are called. The two pro-independence parties intend in this legislature to show that in the last decade there has been what they call a judicial persecution - the so-called lawfare - against political leaders based on their ideology or political positions.
Regarding the debate that is intended to be opened with these parliamentary requests, the governing body of the judges has already made it clear that there is no possibility of judges attending the chambers to give explanations about their processes, among other things, because if if the magistrates did so, they risk a serious penalty for revealing information about their causes.
Sources from the progressive sector of the judicial career state that the debate can exist due to the obligation of every person to appear if called by Congress. But they still specify that the debate is concluded if it is the case that a judge has to talk about their causes. "If someone thinks this is illegal, they will have to go to a court or the Prosecutor's Office", they add.
Sources from the judges' government explain that the Council has never authorized the appearance of a judge. There is an antecedent, that of Daniel de Alfonso, who requested to be able to attend the investigation commission on the Catalonia operation. In that 2017 agreement, the CGPJ warned De – who wanted to go to testify voluntarily – that the questions could not include extra data or statements "that refer to his position or jurisdictional function".
The permanent commission of the CGPJ already then made an interpretation - communicated to the president of the Congress - of article 76.2, in relation to article 117.1 of the Constitution, and the respect that judicial immunity deserves, as an integral element, inseparable and unavailable from judicial independence, which "requires modulating this appearance when dealing with active judges and magistrates".
However, the plenary session of the General Council of the Judiciary will study a request from the conservative bloc on Thursday to influence its position against the intervention of judges in investigative commissions. The progressive sector does not like this request because it believes that what is intended is to instrumentalize the Council.
Recently, the magistrate of the Supreme Court that regulates the activity of the National Intelligence Center (CNI), Pablo Lucas, already refused to attend Parliament to be questioned about the use of Pegasus spy software by the service of intelligence that he controls.
To justify his non-appearance, the judge invoked two articles. One of these articles, 399 of the LOPJ, states that the civil and military authorities "will refrain from subpoenaing judges and magistrates and summoning them to appear in their presence".
The exception to this article is that there may be judicial assistance or cooperation whenever "the act to be executed is not legally permitted or the judge or court's own competence is impaired".
In view of this controversy, the Minister of the Presidency, Justice, and Relations with the Courts, Félix Bolaños, clarified again yesterday that the position of the Spanish Government is to side with the judges: "The Government will always defend the independence and integrity no matter where it comes from. This Government will always defend judges, magistrates and prosecutors because this is defending the rule of law", he pointed out in his speech during the handing over of offices of the LXI promotion of the fiscal career.
After several days of public statements by the minister defending judicial independence, he has finally managed to close the meeting with the president of the Supreme Court, Francisco Marín Castán, for Thursday, after it was suspended by the public statements of Junts' spokespersons.
