The Supreme Court has ordered a halt to the renewal of the leadership of the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) because it considers the process initiated by the government in November to be fundamentally flawed and in violation of current regulations. The decision comes in response to a request for temporary suspension from one of the candidates included in the list to choose the new president of the AEPD, who argued that his fundamental right to access public positions on equal terms had been violated. The leadership of the AEPD, headed by Mar España, was supposed to have been renewed in 2019, but the election of the presidency is now regulated by a law that requires a three-fifths majority in Congress.
The AEPD was supposed to be included in the agreement reached in October between the PSOE and the PP to renew the Constitutional Court and the Court of Audit, but the law enacted in 2018 mandates that the presidency must come from a public call for candidates, which had not been conducted when the agreement was announced. The call for candidates took place almost a month later, with Belén Cardona proposed by the Socialists for the presidency and Borja Adsuara proposed by a popular initiative for the role of assistant to the president. However, two other candidates who were part of the selection process have filed complaints against the Council of Ministers’ agreement regarding the appointment.
One of the candidates, Ricard Martínez, had requested urgent suspension of the process, but the court denied the request due to lack of evidence that Congress would imminently select the new president. However, the Supreme Court did accept the request from Leonardo Cervera, the Director of the European Data Protection Supervisor, leading to the current decision to temporarily halt the process. The court’s reasoning included concerns that the government and the PP had predetermined the candidates before the selection process began and that the Council of Ministers did not follow the proper procedure for submitting candidates to Congress for ratification.
The Supreme Court felt it necessary to suspend the process immediately, rather than waiting for a final ruling on the legality of the government’s actions, to prevent further reputational damage to the AEPD within Spain and the European Union. The court expressed clear indications that the process had been compromised from the outset by not adhering to established regulations, potentially leading to the invalidation of the appointments. The decision to suspend the process was made to prevent potential harm to the reputation of the AEPD and avoid the possible removal of officials who hold positions that are meant to be stable and secure.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to halt the renewal of the AEPD leadership highlights the importance of following legal procedures and maintaining transparency in the selection process for public positions. The concerns raised about potential violations of regulations and pre-selection of candidates underscore the need for accountability and adherence to established norms in the appointment of key leadership roles. Moving forward, it will be important for the government to ensure that future appointments comply with legal requirements and promote a fair and transparent process to maintain the integrity of institutions like the AEPD. It remains to be seen how this development will impact the future direction of the agency and its ability to effectively protect data privacy in Spain.
