The associations of judges (and certain lawyers) saw him coming. That the European Commission would criticize the law of amnesty In terms very similar to those of these organizations and these expert voices that already used when the norm was only a project.
All with the text in force, the Commission reproaches the standard in reality a “Autoamnesty” In contrast to the rule of law.
This is reflected in a report, so advanced this Tuesday by the Spaniards and that was sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tjue).
“A standard must look for the public interest, not to respond to a certain interest,” says the magistrate María Jesús del BarcoDean of the courts of instruction from Madrid and president of the Professional Association of the Magistrliza (APM), majority in the judicial career.
“In this case no need was answered, it was further than that —Mard for the verb Buy votes to reach an investment pact“, the judge issues El Español, who believes that the European Commission’s report” is an approval of what we have said of the association. “
“Indeed, we saw him coming. And now we felt approved,” he says from his side, the judge Verónica PonteMember of the National Committee of the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV), in conversation with El Español.
The AJFV has already issued a report in 2023, when the law of Amnesty was in trial. In some aspects, his conclusions are comparable to the observations of the European Commission, Ponte recalls.
“This rule influences the legal certainty and equality,” says this member of the association, who also claimed that the standard was “clearer and more precisely”.
“Forcing, such as the law of amnesty, to the judges to increase all measures (precaution) Draws a competition to the Jurisdiction instances And alert against the separation of powers, “says Ponte.
“We have already said that the rule influenced judicial independence and told the judges what resolutions they should assume,” he holds full.
Ponte also criticizes that the amnesty law demanded the judicial authorities to apply the standard within a maximum period of two months. “With the situation in which the courts are in Spain, with a much lower rate of judges per inhabitant for the European average …”, he says.
For his part, the professor Enrique GimbernatExpert in criminal law, underlines that the observations of the European Commission coincide with the position of the German Supreme Court, which was censored in a 1952 opinion of 1952.
“And the law of Amnesty is clear that it is,” says the lawyer in conversation with this newspaper. As he remembers, the Catalan Independent of Junts voted against the first text, so he had to return to the Justice Commission of the congress of representatives.
“That is when you have to place all the claims that have been approved together with all those changes. Without their voices it could not have been approved,” he recalls. “They do this law,” the lawyer appreciates.
What did that German punishment of 1952 say? That a car -amnestic law must be considered “void” because he must be “an abuse of legislative power”.
Automnia
This is also collected by the European Commission’s observation report that was sent to the Tjue. The document excludes that the rule responds “to an objective of general interest recognized by the Union (European)”.
And confirmed, as the majority of judicial associations already criticized, their real motives: he continued as “part of a political agreement” to reach the investment of Pedro Sánchez as president of the government.
Fernando Portillo, president of the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI) also indicates that the observations of the committee “come to confirm the criticism that we made to this rule, when it was only a project.”
“We have understood and now we repeat that this amnesty should be conceived as unconstitutional. In the first place, it is a violation of the principle of equality of all Spaniards before the law. And second, it is that the Constitution itself makes the judiciary that makes the constitution.
The President of FJI insists that, if the 1978 constitution prohibits the general grace, “implicitly pronounce a veto about the amnesties.” “If it is forbidden to go more than 80 kilometers per hour, it is forbidden to go to 120 km/h,” compares. “Making an amnesty for the benefit of one; that is, for itself, it is not typical of consolidated democracies of the European Union,” the judge blames.
It is a statement that is very similar to that of the professor of constitutional law Agustín Ruiz Robledo Published in a grandstand in April 2024 in Spanish.
The lawyer has already used the same term in his advisory article. “It is an authentic car -amnesty that the European Union should stop, just like in 2019 when the Romanian government began to process an amnesty to release different corrupt politicians from their own party,” compared Ruiz Robledo.
The European Commission Tilda The Amnesty Act in the same way.
Spanish has also contacted the association Judges and judges for democracy (JJPD), the one who was more considered more related to the left position under all judicial career. In this case you have not obtained an answer.
