The Constitutional Court has unanimously annulled a rule that has been allowing the Supreme Court to establish salary discriminations among its legal advisers. The provision, article 23 of the Law on Judicial Demarcation and Plant, allowed for better compensation for those who come from the judicial career, to the detriment of those from other bodies of the Administration, even though they had the same requirements and functions. The rule was challenged for unconstitutionality by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, arguing it was contrary to articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution, which relate to fundamental rights. Article 14 establishes that “Spaniards are equal before the law, without discrimination based on birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition.” Article 23, on the other hand, determines that citizens “have the right to access public functions and positions under equal conditions, as established by laws.”
The ruling, written by magistrate María Luisa Segoviano, highlights that the positions of legal collaborators at the Supreme Court are not reserved exclusively for members of the judicial career, as officials from other bodies can also hold these positions. It further states that while coordinators may not necessarily come from the judicial career either, there is a preference in the regulations for those who do. The judgment also emphasizes that the functions of coordination do not vary based on the belonging body of the individual performing them. The Constitutional Court believes that an unjustified and unreasonable salary differentiation has been applied to identical situations. It explains that the detected discrimination is not justified because all coordinating legal advisers are treated equally by the Organic Law of the Judiciary, but only those from the judicial career are granted the controversial salary supplement by the disputed law, while no specific rule applies to others. It also points out that the disputed salary supplement is linked to the position, not personal circumstances of the official, and deems the differentiation not rational due to the lack of an objective reason for the difference in salaries.
The Court determined that the discriminatory practice of the salary differentiation was unlawful and unjustifiable. It stated that there was no objective reason to justify the variances in remuneration, as all legal advisers were performing similar tasks. The ruling clarifies that the complement of destination in question is related to the position held, not the personal circumstances of the individual. It concluded that the disparity in remuneration was not reasonable because there was no objective rationale to justify the differing salaries. The judgment essentially highlights the unfairness of the discriminations that were being made based on the origin of the legal advisers and emphasizes the importance of equal treatment and non-discrimination in the workplace.
In summary, the Constitutional Court has declared a rule allowing salary discriminations among legal advisers at the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The regulation, which favored those from the judicial career over others who performed the same functions, was found to be contrary to fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The judgment emphasized the need for equal treatment and non-discrimination in public positions, highlighting that all individuals should have access to roles based on their qualifications rather than their origins. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional principles and ensuring fairness and equality in the workplace.
