In Spain, the debate over reforming the system for appointing members of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has flared up again. This time, the trigger was a report from the Venice Commission, which became the focal point of political confrontation. The document, prepared after a delegation’s visit to Madrid, was presented to the public with an evident bias toward the government’s position.
The crux of the dispute lies in two competing models for selecting judges: one supported by the conservative bloc and the opposition, and the other by the government and progressive groups. The Venice Commission, after analyzing both models, noted that the conservative approach meets European standards, though it still poses a risk of internal politicization. In particular, experts highlighted the potential influence of judicial associations on the nomination process, which could distort the core of the selection itself.
Regarding the progressive model promoted by the government, the commission expressed far greater doubts. According to experts, handing the final decision over to parliament without clear criteria and transparent procedures leaves the system vulnerable to external political pressure. Furthermore, the lack of effective appeal mechanisms and the inability to block the process in parliament threaten the independence of the judiciary.
The report includes a series of recommendations for improving both models. These include reducing the number of signatures required to nominate candidates, revising the procedure for filling vacant seats, ensuring equal conditions for all candidates, and increasing transparency in campaign financing. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for clear rules that guarantee equal opportunities for independent and affiliated candidates.
However, a few hours before the official release of the report, the Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Cortes circulated a brief summary to the media, omitting the main critical remarks directed at the government initiative. As a result, the public perception was that both models received approval, although in reality only one of them was found to meet European standards.
The authorities, in turn, continue to insist on maintaining the current system, arguing that it guarantees the independence of judges and the stability of the judiciary. In their view, any unilateral changes could lead to politicization and instability in the work of the CGPJ. Meanwhile, the opposition and part of the legal community are demanding greater transparency and compliance with all recommendations from international experts.
A delegation from the Venice Commission visited Madrid in September, meeting with the Minister of Justice, members of parliament, CGPJ and Supreme Court members, as well as independent legal experts. The final document was scheduled for publication in mid-October, but its contents became subject to manipulation even before the official release.
