Judges and Prosecutors Warn of Serious Setback to Rule of Law in Spain
Five judicial associations criticize recent reforms to access the judiciary as threatening constitutional principles.
Five associations representing judges and prosecutors in Spain have issued a joint statement indicating that the government's recently approved reform of the judicial career access is a "serious setback" for the rule of law.
They claim that the proposed changes jeopardize judicial independence and constitutional principles.
This statement comes in the wake of the approval by the Council of Ministers on May 14, 2025, which aims to modify the Law of the Judiciary and the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office to expand and strengthen judicial and prosecutorial careers.
The participating associations include the Professional Association of Magistrates (APM), the Association of Prosecutors (AF), the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV), the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI), and the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF).
Notably, these associations represent the majority of judges and prosecutors in Spain, while the progressive associations did not sign the statement.
In their communiqué, the associations refer to the "information known" regarding the reforms and assert that these changes result in arbitrary access to the judiciary, limit democratic participation in governance bodies, and expose key institutions to partisan criteria.
They argue that this situation compromises the citizens' right to a professional, impartial, and independent justice system.
The associations characterize the reforms as a "structural change of great depth" that severely impacts constitutional principles related to equality, merit, and capacity in accessing judicial and prosecutorial careers.
They express particular concern over the removal of an oral examination in the open competition for judicial vacancies, suggesting that it leads to a regression of 30 years and increases subjectivity in the evaluation process.
Additionally, the associations oppose the extraordinary stabilization process for substitute judges and prosecutors, deeming it contrary to constitutional principles and European norms.
They criticize the call for a single process per career without a predetermined number of positions, arguing that it fails to ensure rigorous accreditation of necessary legal knowledge.
Moreover, the association denotes a "democratic setback" in the election of governing bodies due to the imposed individual candidacies and the restriction of suffrage to a single vote, which they claim unjustifiably limits proportional representation within the judicial career.
They highlight that this restriction contradicts European standards that advocate for greater involvement of judges in electing their governing bodies.
The associations noted that they value only the provision regarding the scholarship system and the removal of measures that hinder the reconciliation of personal, family, and professional lives.
They have affirmed their commitment to defending the judicial and prosecutorial careers and constitutional values, stating they will adopt necessary measures to safeguard these principles as required, while fully respecting the parliamentary process.
They claim that the proposed changes jeopardize judicial independence and constitutional principles.
This statement comes in the wake of the approval by the Council of Ministers on May 14, 2025, which aims to modify the Law of the Judiciary and the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office to expand and strengthen judicial and prosecutorial careers.
The participating associations include the Professional Association of Magistrates (APM), the Association of Prosecutors (AF), the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV), the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI), and the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF).
Notably, these associations represent the majority of judges and prosecutors in Spain, while the progressive associations did not sign the statement.
In their communiqué, the associations refer to the "information known" regarding the reforms and assert that these changes result in arbitrary access to the judiciary, limit democratic participation in governance bodies, and expose key institutions to partisan criteria.
They argue that this situation compromises the citizens' right to a professional, impartial, and independent justice system.
The associations characterize the reforms as a "structural change of great depth" that severely impacts constitutional principles related to equality, merit, and capacity in accessing judicial and prosecutorial careers.
They express particular concern over the removal of an oral examination in the open competition for judicial vacancies, suggesting that it leads to a regression of 30 years and increases subjectivity in the evaluation process.
Additionally, the associations oppose the extraordinary stabilization process for substitute judges and prosecutors, deeming it contrary to constitutional principles and European norms.
They criticize the call for a single process per career without a predetermined number of positions, arguing that it fails to ensure rigorous accreditation of necessary legal knowledge.
Moreover, the association denotes a "democratic setback" in the election of governing bodies due to the imposed individual candidacies and the restriction of suffrage to a single vote, which they claim unjustifiably limits proportional representation within the judicial career.
They highlight that this restriction contradicts European standards that advocate for greater involvement of judges in electing their governing bodies.
The associations noted that they value only the provision regarding the scholarship system and the removal of measures that hinder the reconciliation of personal, family, and professional lives.
They have affirmed their commitment to defending the judicial and prosecutorial careers and constitutional values, stating they will adopt necessary measures to safeguard these principles as required, while fully respecting the parliamentary process.
Translation:
Translated by AI
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
