The meeting of the progressive sector of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) ended this Tuesday without any agreement on a hypothetical resignation en bloc. Legal sources consulted by EL MUNDO report that the members appointed at the proposal of the PSOE, Izquierda Unida and the PNV have not adopted a unanimous position on the resignations.
What’s more, sources familiar with the terms in which the meeting took place -for almost two hours- maintain that several of the members have shown their deep discomfort with the counselor Álvaro Cuesta, former deputy of the Socialist Party and very close to Moncloa, for proposing to call a meeting of these characteristics without having previously consulted with the rest of the members of his group. In other words, for indicating that a joint strategy of resignation en bloc had to be addressed under a personal occurrence adopted unilaterally.
Several councilors have reproached Cuesta for trying to condition them with his resignation without there being any reason – beyond the fact that it may be of political interest to the Government to recover the public debate on the renewal of the governing body of judges – to resign now.
In favor of the resignation, only Cuesta himself – who assured that he kept his right to exercise it, although he did not say that he will surely do so – and the member proposed by IU, Concepción Sáez, who weeks ago did send a letter to the president of the CGPJ, Rafael Mozo, his formal resignation.
In recent days, the proposal of the member closest to the PSOE had been rejected by several members of his own group who privately reproached his partner for “the forms” used to publicly raise the debate on a collective resignation within the CGPJ.
Those reproaches occurred this afternoon at the meeting held between the members where Cuesta’s attitude was made ugly. Not surprisingly, the progressive member -aware that he was left in an absolute minority- began to qualify his proposal days ago. From a “coordinated” resignation between the members that deactivated the Plenary Council, he went on to speak of “in any case individual and not collective” resignations.
On the other hand, legal sources explain that in the hypothetical case -and extremely improbable- that eight members resign, the Plenary would be left without the minimum number of members necessary to be able to be constituted, but they point out that the Permanent Commission of the Council could continue to function, for what is doubtful that even carrying out a joint resignation would be automatically forced to renew the body with the path of its dissolution.
In all probability, the matter will be dealt with in plenary session next Thursday where Mozo wants to submit Sáez’s resignation to debate among the members. Although the authority to admit or reject it corresponds exclusively to the president, both members agreed that the matter would be analyzed by the Plenary, where the counselor will present the reasons that drive her departure, including the “institutional degradation” that the constitutional body is going through .
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
