The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which is responsible for investigating corruption cases affecting political power, has been in the hands of the judiciary for at least 20 years. The Popular Party took advantage of José María Aznar’s two terms in government to impose, from the General Council of the Judiciary, a majority of conservative-leaning judges in the second chamber of the Supreme Court. Five of these judges proposed at that time by members elected by the People’s Party would sign the ruling convicting the State Prosecutor, Álvaro García Ortiz, for the crime of disclosing confidential data.
When Aznar came to government in 1996, the People’s Party began to control the criminal chamber of the Supreme Court. It did so through the elected conservative members of the Judicial Council, who exerted their influence on appointments because an absolute majority was sufficient then, and not the three-fifths qualified majority imposed by the government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero starting in 2004. Until the PP came to power in 1996, conservative judges (six) and progressive judges (seven) coexisted in the Criminal Chamber and were roughly equal. In strength. But within just eight years of the conservative government’s rule, the judicial right had gained almost absolute control over the court through which some of the most sensitive cases in Spanish politics would have passed. Of the eleven judges who entered the criminal chamber between 1996 and 2004, only three were progressive. This imbalance has not changed in favor of judicial right, even though the Socialist Workers Party has ruled Spain for 13 of the past 20 years.
How many conservative and progressive justices are there in the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court?
The number of progressive and conservative judges in the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court has evolved according to the annual composition agreements of the court chambers, effective January 1 of each year. 2024 shown by the current distribution
In the last quarter-century, the proportion of progressive judges in the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber has gradually declined, with almost one exception: 1997. That year the retirement of two conservative justices coincided with the return of two progressives who had been on loan to their positions on the Supreme Court.
Source: Bank of England
Today the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court consists of four progressive and 11 conservative justices. This means that none of the courts (of five or seven members) that are set up to accept or rule on various cases have a progressive majority that can impose their standards. This is why divisions on the Court occur on issues of enormous political importance that public opinion does not fully understand. In the face of the same facts and evidence, the two progressive judges who formed the court charged with trying the Public Prosecutor considered him innocent, while the five conservative judges chose to convict.
This is how the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has changed in the past 25 years
List of judges who have held positions in the Second Chamber (Criminal) of the Supreme Court from 1995 to the present, by period of activity. They are grouped according to the judge whom each replaces due to retirement or special services.
in red, Progressive judgesAnd in blue Conservative judges. Highlighted in yellow The majority of CGPJ
Majority CGPJ
presidency
Judges
Source: Bank of England
This division calls into question the integrity of the highest body of ordinary justice in Spain. For the past ten years (2014-2024), the head of the Criminal Chamber has been Manuel Marchena, a conservative judge who the PP said that, as head of the judiciary, would ensure control of that chamber through the back door. Marchena resigned from the head of the judiciary after learning the opinion of the People’s Party regarding his professional qualities. During his tenure at the Criminal Court there have been some controversial statements when it comes to resolving cases of high political tension.
The pardon of Junqueras and Puigdemont on charges of embezzlement was overturned
The Supreme Court declared that “the crime of embezzlement of public funds in the ‘Report’ case had not been pardoned.” A chamber composed of six judges (five conservatives and one progressive) objected to the application of the amnesty law to independence leaders Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, Raúl Romeva, Jordi Turol and Dolores Basa.
The drafters of the Amnesty Law specified in one of its articles that embezzlement crimes are subject to pardon as long as these events do not result in financial enrichment for independence leaders. The president of the Criminal Chamber, Manuel Marchena, drafted the order, which was upheld by four other conservative judges: Andrés Martínez Arrieta, Juan Ramón Perdugo, Antonio del Moral, and Andres Palomo. The other judge of that court, Anna Ferrer, who has a progressive orientation, signed a dissenting vote supporting the application of amnesty to the independence leaders and gave a completely different interpretation from that of her conservative colleagues. The Constitutional Court is scheduled to decide in the coming months whether the interpretation of the conservative majority in the Supreme Court is correct or whether pro-independence leaders, including Puigdemont, can benefit from the benefits of the amnesty law.
Puigdemont charged with terrorism
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court accepted the reasoned offer made by National Court judge Manuel García Castellón, who, in the midst of drafting the amnesty law, tried to charge the former President of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, with a terrorist crime – which cannot be pardoned – related to a protest demonstration against the court ruling at Prat Airport. Although García Castellón’s reasoned statement did not meet the minimum standards imposed by the Supreme Court, the court decided to accept it for consideration and tried Puigdemont for an alleged terrorist crime. The court that issued this decision consisted of five judges, all conservatives: Manuel Marchena, Julián Sánchez Melgar, Juan Ramón Berdugo, Carmen Lamela, and Eduardo Borres. A serious error in Judge Manuel García Castellon’s instructions forced the Supreme Court to archive the case.
ERE ruling that imposed imprisonment on Grenian
The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court has ratified a six-year prison sentence against former Andalusian President José Antonio Grenán on charges of embezzlement. The court was composed of three conservative justices, Juan Ramón Perdugo Gómez de la Torre, Carmen Lamela, and Eduardo de Porres, who imposed their majority against the other two progressive justices Ana Ferrer García and Susana Polo García who cast a dissenting vote. The Constitutional Court, with a progressive majority, overturned this ruling.
A false case was opened against Victoria Rosell, which caused her resignation
The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court accepted to consider the complaint of former Industry Minister José Manuel Soria, who left office due to a corruption case, against the then Podemos MP and judge on vacation, Victoria Rosell. Syria accused her of committing crimes of malicious delay in the administration of justice, evasion and bribery while she was president of the Investigative Court No. 8 in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Admission to treatment was decided by an order whose spokesman was Manuel Marchena, head of the Criminal Chamber at the time, and in a court with a conservative majority. The investigation was archived but Victoria Rosell resigned as MP as a result of the High Court’s decision to prosecute her.
Alberto Rodriguez’s conviction that left him without his record
Four conservative judges, Manuel Marchena, Miguel Colmenero, Juan Ramon Perdugo, and Vicente Magro, sentenced Unidas Podemos deputy Alberto Rodríguez Rodríguez, as the perpetrator of the crime of attacking law enforcement officials, with the high mitigating circumstance of unjustified delay, to one month and 15 days in prison, with the special disqualification annex of negative suffrage during the duration of the sentence. The prison sentence was replaced by a 90-day fine with a daily fee of €6 (total of €540). Two progressive justices who were part of that court, Susana Polo and Leopoldo Puente, cast a dissenting vote against the decision.
Alberto Rodriguez was forced to leave his deputy’s register as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. The Constitutional Court ruled, with an absolute progressive majority, that replacing a prison sentence with a fine should not disqualify him from serving as an MP, which would mean losing his seat, and thus overturned the decision taken by the then President of Congress, Meritexel Pater, to withdraw his deputy’s certificate.
About The Author
