The judicial associations have presented allegations to the hundred of measures proposed by the CGPJ to the Ministry of Justice to avoid the collapse of the courts before the foreseeable massive entrance of affairs once the state of alarm rises.
The associations of judges have questioned the shock plan proposed by the General Council of the Judiciary in view of the expected workload after the state of alarm, estimating that some measures do not adapt to the judicial reality and imply structural changes with a vocation of permanence .
Throughout these days, the judicial associations have been presenting their allegations to the hundred measures proposed by the CGPJ to the Ministry of Justice to avoid the collapse of the courts due to the foreseeable massive influx of affairs once the state of alarm is lifted.
Among others, the CGPJ proposed the possibility of enabling the month of August, to issue oral sentences in certain circumstances; or to discourage “unsubstantiated” litigation by paying the costs or imposing a fine in civil law.
It also proposed implanting reinforcement mechanisms, defining norms for distribution and specialization in the civil order, exceeding the territorial scope of the judicial party, and, in relation to the ERTE, raising the amount for access to the appeal resource or that the judgments resolving the challenges ” are not subject to appeal or, where appropriate, ordinary appeal. ”
The Professional Association of the Magistracy (APM), the majority in the sector, assumes that the draft is “well-intentioned”, but beyond some “successful measures”, it proposes others “excessively ambitious” that would be delayed over time, or that directly “They are ineffective or have little to do with reality.”
They fear that the CGPJ will seek with the document “monopolize and assume exceptional powers over the statute of judges” and ask for immediate concrete measures that are issued “with scrupulous respect for constitutional norms”, “unification of criteria”, and more resources personal.
For its part, the association of judges Francisco de Vitoria (AJFV) also considered that the crash plan ignored the reality of justice with measures that would imply a “structural change in the procedural model” that, in the opinion of the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI) ), could affect judicial independence.
The progressive Judges and Judges for Democracy (JJPD) also criticized that “significant procedural reforms are proposed and removed from the necessary public debate” and considered that the proposals should be limited to “punctual actions exclusively linked” to giving a quick response to the affairs.