The president and five other members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) have defended this Monday that Álvaro García Ortiz meets the merits and requirements to be attorney general of the State and that the Plenary Session of the governing body of the judges “should have been limited to “verification of their suitability” as established by law and should not have taken into consideration other matters, such as their policy of discretionary appointments and the harsh ruling of the Supreme Court (TS) on Dolores Delgado, their criteria with the law of the only yes is yes or his “inactivity” to defend the prosecutors of the process of the accusations of lawfare.
This is stated in the private vote issued by the progressive member Roser Bachto which the interim president has joined, Vicente Guilarteand also the members of the progressive wing Mar Cabrejas, Álvaro Cuesta, Clara Martínez de Careaga y Pilar Sepúlveda. In this way, the signatories show their opposition to the decision adopted by the majority of the CGPJ Plenary to consider García Ortiz unsuitable for the position of attorney general.
In the text, collected by Europa Press, the members recall that the Plenary Session of the governing body of the judges has reported on six occasions on proposals made by the Minister council for the appointment of State Attorney General.
In this sense, they specify that, “on all these occasions”, the Plenary has maintained a “constant criterion of limited judgment of the suitability of the candidates proposed by the Council of Ministers, limiting the examination to compliance with the requirements and legally established merits”.
As an example, the signatories give the example that “in the plenary session of October 27, 2016, in the debate on the appointment of Manuel Maza Martin “The scope of the report on the suitability of the candidate was addressed and the position of the members who advocated a broad examination of the professional career and merits of the proposed person was rejected, and the aforementioned members cast a dissenting vote supporting their position.”