The Association Judges for Democracy (JPD) has requested on Monday the resignation of the president of the third room of the Supreme Court, Luis María Díez-Picazo Giménez, for his "disastrous management" of the sentence on the tax of legal acts documented.
In a statement, the association recalled that last Thursday 18 was released a ruling of the second section of the Third room of the Supreme that estimated that it is the financial institution, and not the client, who is responsible for the tax acts Legal documents, against their own criteria of February this year, when a judgment estimated that the payment should fall on the client.
This group of judges believes that "Díez-Picazo" is surprising, that "in an unprecedented performance", the day after the sentence was heard and before "its enormous economic and social impact," he agreed "urgently to leave without effect all pending appeals on cassation with a similar object ".
From JJpD they point out that they are aware "that the decisions of judges have an impact, not only on the life and economy of the citizens in particular, but on society as a whole", and remind Díez-Picazo that he himself signed in January of this year a car in which it was recognized that a "doctrinal debate" had been opened on a matter "that affects a large number of situations and has an important social significance, beyond the case that is the object of the process".
There is no precedent for this "unusual action" by Díez-Picazo, continues the statement, which has generated "incomprehension and bad image" for the administration of justice, with its "disastrous management" of a matter "of which it is unique and exclusive "
In addition to social alarm, has generated confusion in the citizenship, who does not know what to do with their mortgages and all their domestic economy, in addition to legal uncertainty.
All this has questioned the impartiality and independence of the judges, adds the note, generating before the citizenship an unfortunate image of its judges.
For its part, the Union of Lawyers of the Administration of Justice (Sisej) has shown, in a statement, their "perplexity and disagreement" with the suspension of the statements, to understand that the right "should be the continuation" of all pending resources.
In his opinion, the economic and social repercussion alleged by the Supreme Court last Friday "is not sufficient justification" insofar as it "exceeds the constitutional mission of the Judiciary and the principle of separation of powers, pretending to assume a leading role in the economic direction of the State ".
Reasons for regrets any criterion that does not benefit the social sectors "most disadvantaged against the interests of financial powers that, in any case, should prevail over democratic institutions."