The ongoing controversy surrounding the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) in Spain is mainly focused on two elements: the system of selection of judicial members and the prolonged period of interim status due to the refusal of the Popular Party to proceed with its renewal for over five years. However, the issues with the CGPJ go beyond these points and also encompass the competence in the appointments of high-ranking judicial officials, such as the Presidents of the National Court, the Presidents of Chambers, and magistrates of the Supreme Court. The criticisms of the selection process have come to the forefront due to the limitations imposed by the approval of Organic Law 4/2021, leading to vacancies in these positions, particularly in the Supreme Court, remaining unfilled. This has resulted in a decline in the performance of the judicial functions of these institutions.
The allocation of appointing powers to the CGPJ requires a deeper reflection on the significance and the problems it brings about. Unlike the rest of the judicial career, which has clear criteria for promotion based on merit, ability, and specialization, the selection of high-ranking officials follows a different path, giving the CGPJ significant discretion in decision-making. A comparison with other countries like the Netherlands and Denmark shows different approaches to the appointment process, with Spain standing out for the absence of a general framework for appointments. This lack of regulation has been criticized by the Group of States against Corruption (Greco) from the Council of Europe, which highlighted concerns about the transparency and impartiality of the selection process for these positions.
In response to the critiques from Greco, Spain amended its system in 2018, introducing more transparency in the selection process. However, despite the progress made, Greco highlighted key issues in the final report, such as the possibility of adding individuals who did not pass previous evaluations to the list of preselected candidates, which undermines equality and transparency. Furthermore, the lack of publication of the guidelines for the selection process raises concerns about the transparency of the CGPJ’s decision-making. Improvements are still required to address these issues, as a high level of discretion in appointments can lead to politicization and biases in the selection of judicial candidates.
According to the Council of European Judges, Judicial Councils with extensive powers are more susceptible to politicization, emphasizing the need for absolute independence, transparency, and merit-based evaluations in the selection process. To mitigate this risk, there is a call for a comprehensive framework for the judicial career path, detailing the merits required for high-ranking positions, reducing the discretion of the CGPJ. Moreover, assigning the appointment competence to a specific body within the Council, composed of specialists in the field, could enhance objectivity and impartiality in the selection process. The path towards a more transparent and merit-based appointment process for high-ranking judicial officials in Spain requires further improvements to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary system.
