A sharp conflict is escalating in Spain between two key judicial bodies. The Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) has issued unprecedented criticism of the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional), accusing it of weakening oversight of appointments to top positions within the judiciary. According to the Supreme Court, such a stance risks a return to outdated practices, where decisions were made without transparency or accountability, which could lead to increased political and clientelist influence within the justice system.
Supreme Court judges insist that oversight of appointments should not be limited to a formal review of legality. A thorough analysis of the motives behind the selection of candidates is essential to prevent arbitrariness and to protect the principles of the rule of law. The court’s ruling emphasizes that abandoning such oversight is a step backward, comparable to returning to 19th-century practices when administrative discretion was not subject to judicial review.
Criticism and consequences
The Supreme Court specifically emphasizes that the reasons for an appointment must be clearly justified and understandable to any impartial observer. The judges warn that focusing solely on legal compliance may overlook the real motives, which could be far removed from the public interest. As an example, they cite the appointment of a juvenile prosecutor, where preference was given to a candidate without relevant specialization, while the merits of another contender with the necessary experience were disregarded.
The Supreme Court’s decision contains criticism of the former Attorney General, who, according to the judges, underestimated the importance of professional qualifications for this particular role. The court believes that such an approach paves the way for subjective and politically motivated decisions, undermining trust in the judiciary.
Arguments of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court, for its part, maintains that the legislature intentionally left room for administrative discretion in appointments so that authorities could consider a broad array of criteria. At the same time, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, judicial oversight should be limited to verifying adherence to procedures prescribed by law, without assessing the advisability or desirability of particular candidates.
The judges of the Constitutional Court emphasize that decisions of competent bodies should not be replaced by one’s own judgment about who is more deserving of appointment. In their view, this approach is in line with the principle of separation of powers and safeguards the independence of administrative decisions.
Debate on the limits of oversight
The Supreme Court disagrees with this interpretation. Its ruling states that even bodies with constitutional status, if acting within the framework of administrative law, must comply with the general principles governing the review of discretionary powers. According to the judges, exempting such decisions from judicial oversight lacks legal justification and contradicts the foundations of the rule of law.
The judges recall that the Constitution of Spain (artículo 103) requires all administrative actions to fully comply with the law and the principle of prohibiting arbitrariness. Therefore, the Supreme Court considers that restricting oversight to merely formal aspects is a dangerous trend that could lead to abuse and undermine the quality of governance.
Context and parallels
The issue of the scope of judicial control over personnel decisions has repeatedly sparked fierce debate in Spain. Recently, a similar controversy erupted around political appointments in Madrid, when rulings by the Constitutional Court prompted a sharp reaction from the opposition and led to calls for the resignation of high-ranking officials. Further details on this conflict can be found in the article on political confrontation over appointments in the capital.
In recent years, Spain has seen a rise in cases where personnel changes in the judiciary and administration become the focus of public attention. Debates about the transparency and objectivity of these decisions go beyond professional circles and involve a wide audience. Such disputes are often accompanied by accusations of politicization and attempts to influence the independence of the judicial system. In a climate where trust in institutions remains fragile, every new decision in this area attracts close scrutiny and sparks heated debate.
