4 of the magistrates of the Tribunal Supremo (TS) who need to come to a decision whether or not the state lawyer normal, Alvaro Garcia Ortizcontinues in workplace have refused to go away from the deliberationas asked through the pinnacle of the Public Ministry, working out that This declare “distorts the mechanism” with which the legislator desires to verify the impartiality of the pass judgement on. and may create an “immunity house.”
In a writing, the magistrates Pablo Lucas, Luis María Díez-Picazo, Antonio Fonseca-Herrero and José Luis Requero They have got confident that they are going to now not deviate from the find out about of the enchantment introduced through the Skilled and Impartial Affiliation of Prosecutors (APIF) in opposition to the renewal of Garcia Ortiz.
The signatories have spoken this manner after the lawyer normal introduced a recusal incident through which he requested to take away them from the deliberation, working out that they’re the similar ones who already stated that he had acted with a “diversion of energy.” through proposing Dolores Delgado as a togada prosecutora controversy on which the APIF bases its enchantment in opposition to its designation.
Within the transient, the 4 magistrates shield that they have got now not participated in a prior lawsuit or case that is affecting García Ortiz. They usually insist that The ruling on which the recusal file is primarily based refers to “an motion through the Council of Ministers on an offer from the State Legal professional Normal.”.
“It’s completely unusual”
«We remember that having spoken about the illegality of an appointment agreed through the Council of Ministers on the proposal of the State Legal professional Normal does now not have compatibility into any of the assumptions of article 219 of the Natural regulation of judicial energy and, particularly, it does now not combine that integrated in case 112″, they argue.
On this sense, they handle that “It’s completely unusual” that they wish to “assessment a last ruling on a distinct factor and whose annulment may have been claimed” García Ortiz did believe that it affected his rights.
For the magistrates, “convert the appreciation of the details and the factors implemented to get to the bottom of a prior procedure because of recusal into a distinct next one.” distorts the mechanism with which the legislator desires to verify, now not ‘the loss of partiality (sic)’ this is attributed to us, however the impartiality of the pass judgement on and issues to the circumvention of the pass judgement on predetermined through the regulation.
On the other hand, they emphasize that “if it is thought of as that annulling an motion similar to the only within the case disqualifies the courtroom that ordered it from listening to next appeals through which different acts are judged, whether or not they’re of the State Legal professional Normal, or whether or not they have got been followed on an offer his, would imply disqualifying him from exercising the serve as entrusted to him through article 106.1 of the Charter and would finally end up developing areas of immunity because of the impossibility of constituting anyone who may achieve this«.
Moreover, the 4 believe that the problem introduced through García Ortiz is “obviously premature”since “it’s not because of the content material of the lawsuit” however to the ruling through which the appointment of Dolores Delgado as prosecutor of the Army Chamber of the Splendid Court docket used to be annulled.
