Although only five members were needed for the plenary session of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) to meet again, in the end there will be eight who consider that the governing body of the judges should return to a vote on the possibility of raising a conflict of powers with Congress on account of the reform that prevents him from making appointments while in office .
Throughout this Monday they will present the letter in this sense to meet in an extraordinary way and formalize the conflict of powers that, ultimately, must be resolved by the Constitutional Court, sources from the Council confirmed to this newspaper.
The CGPJ regulation foresees the holding of an extraordinary plenary session – in addition to the monthly one that is traditionally held on the last Thursday of each month – if five of its 20 members request it in writing , to which the president must add.
At last Thursday’s meeting, very few members allowed this intention to be seen, but as there were some, the door was left open to re-study whether or not to raise a conflict of attributions with Congress if the expected number requested it. This type of appeal can only be filed within 30 days after the reason for the confrontation arose , in this case, the legislative reform.
Voted by the plenary
Finally there has been consensus among eight of those integrated in the conservative sector and they will formalize their request throughout the day.
But despite being more than necessary to request the holding of an extraordinary plenary session, that does not mean that your proposal, which is very critical of the limitation of its functions while the renewal of its members does not take place, goes ahead, because it will have to be the plenary the one who makes the final decision on raising the conflict or not.
In this way, those that arise between the Government, the Congress of Deputies, the Senate and the General Council of the Judiciary are resolved.
“When one of these constitutional bodies considers that another of them adopts decisions assuming powers conferred on it by the Constitution or by organic laws, it shall inform the invading body within the month following in which the decision of which it had come to its knowledge. the undue assumption of attributions is inferred and it will ask you to revoke it “.
“If the body to which the request is addressed affirms that it acts in the exercise of its powers or, within a month from receipt of the notification, does not rectify in the requested sense, the body that considers its powers unduly assumed may raise a conflict before the Constitutional Court, specifying the precepts that it considers violated and formulating the allegations it deems appropriate, “according to the high court.