The Permanent Commission of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has agreed this Tuesday to request the Promoter of Disciplinary Action to open a file against Judge Eloy Velasco for his disqualifications of the MEP and former Minister of Equality Irene Montero. The magistrate assured that “Irene Montero will never learn from her Mercadona ATM, nor will she be able to teach others.” The decision has been agreed thanks to the votes of the progressive members, who have been joined by the president, Isabel Perelló.
The Promoter had proposed the archiving of the open information procedure as a result of the complaints received due to the magistrate's statements. In its archival resolution, it considered that these demonstrations lack disciplinary relevance because they were carried out in a debate forum, and, therefore, outside the judicial proceedings. He also argued that the judge had addressed a current issue such as consent in sexual relations. At that time, says the Promoter, there was controversy from certain sectors regarding the interpretations of that concept by the judges.
Furthermore, the disciplinary authority pointed out that the demonstrations do not fit into the conduct typified by article 417.2 of the Judiciary Law. This article prohibits judges from addressing powers, authorities or public officials or official corporations with congratulations or censure for their actions, invoking the status of judge or using that status. According to the Promoter, there is no evidence that the magistrate expressly invoked his condition to formulate his criticism, much less that, for this purpose, he used it.
The Permanent Commission does not share the arguments of the Promoter, which is why it has agreed to order him to open a disciplinary file. The decision was adopted by majority, with the casting vote of President Perelló. The members chosen at the initiative of the PP – Pilar Jiménez Bados, José Eduardo Martínez Mediavilla, Isabel Revuelta and Alejandro Abascal – have announced a private vote since they disagree with the majority decision.
On the other hand, the Promoter has agreed to archive the investigation opened to the Madrid judge Adolfo Carretero for his incisive interrogation of the actress Elisa Mouliaá in the framework of the case opened after the complaint that she filed against Iñigo Errejón for an alleged sexual assault.
The disciplinary authority considers that the magistrate could have used terms or expressions that are uncomfortable or asked questions aimed at contrasting the veracity of the actress's version, but he directed the statement without committing any disciplinary infraction. In its archival resolution, the Promoter explains that the decontextualized view of only a part of the recording offers an inaccurate or distorted reality, which does not correspond to what is verified once viewed in its entirety.
In the videos that emerged from the interrogation, Carretero even described a “part” of his accusation as “strange” and even questioned whether he had denounced the former politician out of spite. Questions like “wouldn't it be that you did want something with him?”, “how do you go home with this man?” or “why did (he) take out his virile member?” plagued an appearance in which the judge did not stop cutting off the complainant with a severe and incisive tone. The Promoter received more than 900 complaints and allegations in relation to Carretero's actions in this case.
Finally, the Permanent Commission has taken note of the Promoter's resolution by which it agrees to archive the information procedure opened last April against Ángel Hurtado, the Supreme Court judge who has investigated the case against the State Attorney General. The complaints indicated that the investigator had failed in his judicial duties by disseminating personal data unnecessary for the investigation, prolonging the procedure more than necessary with malicious actions and bad faith.
In its resolution to file, the Promoter points out that these statements have not the slightest relationship with facts of a disciplinary nature and that they constitute aspects of the instruction. It adds, in this sense, that any disagreement or criticism intended to be made against the decisions contained in the judicial resolutions must be channeled through the appeal system.