The first meeting between the interlocutors of the conservative and progressive sectors of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has been settled without major agreements that allow risking an early appointment of the two magistrates that correspond to the body that interprets the fundamental rule, the Constitutional Court. Both sectors will meet again next Wednesday.
At the moment, according to the conservative sector, the agreement is only that the appointments must be made "by a large majority" and that the candidates must be chosen "after a thorough evaluation of their CVs." They have also agreed that the candidates preferably come from the Supreme Court, something that is not new because it was the custom that they had been maintaining to date. The conservatives also affirm that the progressives have a list of nine candidates that has not been presented due to the lack of compiling their resumes.
The conservative part has presented three points in which it says there is no agreement with the progressives. The first, that the "repercussion of those selected in the composition of the jurisdictional bodies of origin" be assessed. Secondly, that it is not convenient to take the appointments to the plenary session of the CGPJ while there is no consensus and, finally, that the aforementioned consensus "will be reached after deliberation within the respective groups."
The CGPJ in office was placed last Tuesday outside the law by not appointing the two magistrates who correspond to appoint within the deadline. That deadline was passed before the members had even started talks about possible names. To this day, it remains unknown when the four Constitutional judges whose mandate has expired since June 12 and whose replacement corresponds to the Judiciary (two) and the Government (two others) can be replaced. The Executive has finally given up appointing its own until the governing body of the judges does so.
Behind this strategy are eight members who are part of the hard core of the conservative sector and who seem willing to prevent the right from losing its majority in a court as relevant as the Constitutional Court. During the last few weeks, members of this group had already slipped that they did not feel concerned with the deadline set in the law and asked for respect for the "decision times" of the CGPJ.