Disciplinary Committee

The Disciplinary Committee shall comprise seven members: four appointed on the basis of judicial rotation, and three on the basis of the rotation of jurists of recognised competence. The Plenary Session shall elect the members who will comprise the Disciplinary Committee. With the exception of any replacements that may be required, said members shall serve for a term of five years.

The Disciplinary Committee must operate under the attendance of all its members. It shall be chaired by the most senior and longest-serving member who must also have a legal background. In the event of temporary incapacity or justified absence of any of its members, the Permanent Committee may replace said member with another drawn from the same source and of identical standing.

The Disciplinary Committee shall have the authority to resolve disciplinary cases instigated as a result of serious and very serious infractions, and shall, where appropriate, impose such penalties as correspond to Judges and Magistrates, with the sole exception of circumstances in which the proposed penalty involves removal from office. An appeal for consideration by a higher authority, against the punitive resolutions of the Disciplinary Committee referred to above, may be lodged within a period of one month. The Disciplinary Committee shall also hear appeals for considerations by a higher authority that have been lodged against punitive resolutions issued by the internal governing bodies of the courts (Articles 603 and 604 of the Organic Act on the Judiciary).

Advocate for Disciplinary Action

 

I. General considerations

Organic Law 4/2013, of 28 June, for the reform of the General Council of the Judiciary, modified various points within Organic Law 6/1885 on the Judiciary, of 1 July, including the exercise of one of the powers that article 122 of the Spanish Constitution assigns to the Council: the exercise of judicial disciplinary power, which is also regulated is articles 414 to 427, inclusive, of the Organic Law on the Judiciary.

In this sphere, both the sole article of the aforementioned Organic Law 4/2013, which creates article 605 of Organic Law 6/1985, and its Seventh Transitory Provision prove decisive.

• Article 605 stipulates that “The Advocate for Disciplinary Action shall be responsible for the receipt of complaints concerning the operation of judicial bodies, the receipt of formal accusations and for initiating and examining disciplinary cases and presenting charges before the Disciplinary Committee.”
• For its part, the Seventh Transitory Provision stipulates:
  “1. Once the first General Council of the Judiciary has been constituted in accordance with the stipulations of this Organic Law, and whilst the disciplinary content of the Organic Law on the Judiciary remains unchanged, all references that the latter makes to those charged with the examination of disciplinary cases will be understood to refer to the Advocate for Disciplinary Action, along the Lawyers of the General Council of the Judiciary who assist him or her.
  2. From the point outlined in the previous paragraph onwards, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings will be ordered by the Advocate for Disciplinary Action, or, where appropriate, by the Permanent Committee, in accordance with the stipulations of this Organic Law.”

II. Essential aspects of activity

The essential aspects of the activity of the Advocate for Disciplinary Action are as follows:

• Examination of disciplinary proceedings initiated against members of the Judiciary.
• Safeguarding of compliance with constitutional and legal guarantees during the processing of disciplinary proceedings.
• Coordination of criteria for action in the sphere of investigation of disciplinary infringements.
• Processing and resolving complaints and formal accusations entailing disciplinary content that are lodged before the General Council of the Judiciary and the forwarding of the corresponding proposals to the Disciplinary Committee.
• Guaranteeing, in terms of efficacy and transparency, with complete adherence to regulations governing data protection, the proper exercise of the function of detecting and examining judicial disciplinary infringements.

III. Competencies and structure

In accordance with the cited regulatory framework, the Advocate for Disciplinary Action is essentially assigned two competencies: the receipt of complaints and accusations; and the disciplinary role itself (initiation, examination and formulation of the list of charges and, where appropriate, a proposal for a ruling before the Disciplinary Committee).

a) Complaints and accusations

The duties in this area are integrated into the system of complaints and denouncements envisaged in Regulation 1/1998, of 2 December, for the processing of complaints and denouncements relating to the operation of Courts and Tribunals, and in Guideline 1/1999, which contains the service Protocol, Forms for the processing of complaints and grievances and background information for citizens.

The development of this function has not been altered by the reforms brought about via Organic Law 4/2013, and is undertaken by the Citizen Services Unit or Subdirectorate, integrating the previous Citizen Services Unit that was a dependency of the Inspection Department, which was assigned to the Advocate for Disciplinary Action via Resolution of the General Secretariat of 25 March 2014.

Via this body, responses are afforded to grievances, complaints and denouncements that have no disciplinary bearing, and reports can be requested from the affected bodies for a more detailed clarification of events.

• b) Disciplinary activity

This role of the Advocate for Disciplinary Action has been significantly affected by the aforementioned Organic Law 4/2013.

Up until the recent reform, the Disciplinary Committee was the only body charged with deciding whether or not to initiate proceedings, assign the examiner and, finally, sanction a Judge or Magistrate or dismiss the charges. In addition, articles 152.6 and 421.1 a) and b) of Organic Law 6/1985, on the Judiciary, regulated the disciplinary powers of the Presidents of the Supreme Court, Higher Courts of Justice and the High Court, and their Governing Chambers.

This system has now been changed and one of the most important innovations is precisely focused on the transformation of the role of the Disciplinary Committee and the disciplinary procedure. In effect, when the reform of 4 December 2013 entered into force, two fundamental changes were introduced:

• Article 605 of the Law creates the figure of the Advocate for Disciplinary Action, a post that, in addition to other roles that had previously been assigned to different Departments within the General Council of the Judiciary, takes on the functions of deciding whether to initiate and examine disciplinary proceedings, formulating the list of charges and issuing the proposal for a ruling, thereby introducing the accusatory principle and the professionalisation of the examination of the disciplinary proceedings, which, up to this point, had been assigned, on a cases by case basis, to Magistrates who still had to carry out their normal duties.
• The Disciplinary Committee is constituted as the decision-making body within disciplinary proceedings for serious or extremely serious infringements, imposing the corresponding sanctions, with the exception of the sanction of removal from office, which, in view of its gravity, falls to the Plenary of the Council.
• The Presidents of the Supreme Court, Higher Courts of Justice and the High Court, and their Governing Chambers, retain their disciplinary role with regards to minor infractions.

This function is undertaken by two different Units:

1. The Unit or Subdirectorate for Preliminary Proceedings, previously the Reports Unit, a dependency of the Inspection Department affiliated to the Advocate for Disciplinary Action via Resolution of the General Secretariat issued on 25 March 2014. The Unit processes the preliminary proceedings required for initial verification and evaluation of the facts that may result in disciplinary action.
2. The Disciplinary Unit or Subdirectorate, which derives in part from the Disciplinary System Department that supported the Disciplinary Committee, which was also affiliated to the Advocate for Disciplinary Action via a Resolution of the General Secretariat issued on 25 March 2014. The Units process disciplinary cases.

OMBUDSMAN FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION

• Mr. Ricardo Gonzalo Conde Díez

COMPOSITION DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE:

• Mr. Wenceslao Olea Godoy
• Mr. Álvaro Cuesta Martínez
• Mr. Gerardo Martínez Tristán
• Mr. Enrique Lucas Murillo de la Cueva
• Mr. Juan Manuel Fernández Martínez
• Mr. Juan Martínez Moya
• Mr. José María Macías Castaño