The promoter of the disciplinary action does not see a crime in the comments of the head of the Social Court 1 of Barcelona
The promoter of the disciplinary action of the General Council of the Judiciary has archived the informative diligence opened to the head of the Social Court number 1 of Barcelona, Carlos Antony Vegas, considering that the comments on Twitter under the identity of Randy Watson (@EstadoCharnego) for which he was denounced by the ‘consellera’ of Justice, Lourdes CiuroThey are not constitutive of any disciplinary offense.
To the diligence opened at the request of the ‘consellera’, who understood that the magistrate had violated the duties of judicial ethics that were presumed to him, was added the communication sent by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia in relation to the challenge formulated by the former deputy and journalist Pilar Rahola in a dismissal procedure of which he was a party. The Social Chamber of the TSJ admitted the challenge, which had been previously rejected by the magistrate, understanding that the tweets had broken his appearance of impartiality.
private account
The promoter explains the file in which the magistrate issued the tweets under a pseudonym and in a private account, so it can be presumed that he acted in a private capacity using a name that did not reveal, directly or indirectly, his belonging to the judicial career. He also explains that disciplinary actions are governed by the principle of classification, which means that only those behaviors that fit into any of the offenses described in the organic law of the Judiciary may be sanctioned.
In this case, the tweets “do not meet the budgets that make up the disciplinary types that act as a limit” to the freedom of expression of judges and magistrates, such as the revelation of secretsthe creating serious clashes with the authorities of the constituency where they exercise jurisdiction, the correction of the exercise of the jurisdictional function made by others judges or the lack of consideration due.
In addition, since 2016, the hypothetical violations of the principles of judicial ethics have no disciplinary consequences as long as the conduct in question does not fit into any of the disciplinary infractions included in the LOPJ.
Related news
And as for not having refrained from the open procedure for the dismissal of Rahola, the promoter considers that it does not constitute a disciplinary infraction in itself. The magistrate denied having a feeling of enmity towards the complainant and there was no prior personal contact between the two.
The challenge was finally admitted by the TSJ, not because there were indications of manifest enmity with one of the parties or interest, direct or indirect, in the case; but because of the breaking of the appearance of impartiality caused by the tweets. The promoter’s decision can be appealed before the Permanent Commission of the CGPJ.