The Promoter of the Disciplinary Action of the General Council of the Judiciary, Ricardo Conde, has agreed to file the informative procedure opened to a magistrate from Barcelona for some tweets in which, according to the complaint of the Minister of Justice of the Generalitat, Lourdes Ciuró and Buldó violated the principles of judicial ethics. The person in charge of investigating and punishing, if applicable, the members of the career considers that the facts do not constitute any disciplinary fault, so no disciplinary file will be opened.
Under the profile of “Randy Watson@EstadoCharnego”, the judge, who has a good number of followers on social networks, would have positioned himself against the policies of the regional government, including against non-compliance with the 25 percent sentence. This circumstance has led to several recusals, one of them, from the former deputy Pilar Rahola in a dismissal procedure, was admitted by the Social Chamber of the TSJ of Catalonia (which saw its appearance of impartiality broken), communicated to the CGPJ and joined to this informative diligence that now closes.
Regarding the controversy over the court decision that recognized some parents the right of their daughter to receive 25% of classes in Spanish at a school in Canet de Mar (Barcelona), he said the following: «You are so prudish that you prefer to have the son sunnormal [sic] in Catalan than to get out of your pathological cowardice». He also replied to tweets on the same subject from President Pere Aragonès (“as long as you don’t all end up in jail, it won’t end”) and former Vice President Oriol Junqueras (“you don’t touch Catalan, but you rub Catalan children while you put blood sausage”)
Regarding the first brief, that of the Minister of Justice, the promoter points out that 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 he did not reveal, directly or indirectly. , his belonging to the judicial career.
It also explains that disciplinary actions are governed by the principle of typicity, which means that only those behaviors that fit into any of the types described by the Organic Law of the Judiciary in its articles 417, 418 and 419 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 secrets, the creation of serious confrontations with the authorities of the district where they exercise the jurisdiction, the correction of the exercise of the jurisdictional function made by other members of the judicial career or the lack of due consideration.
Conde clarifies that aside from the disciplinary offenses, the violation of the principles of judicial ethics are outside its scope and lack disciplinary consequences when the conduct does not fit into the aforementioned disciplinary infractions.
In relation to the communication sent by the TSJ, the promoter analyzes whether the magistrate knowingly failed to comply with his duty to refrain from a judicial proceeding due to manifest enmity with a party or because he had a direct or indirect interest in the case. Thus, Conde starts from the finding as a true fact that the magistrate’s tweets generated doubts regarding his appearance of impartiality, which is one of the grounds for disqualification provided for in the LOPJ. And that failure to comply with the duty to abstain, “knowingly” that any of the legally established causes is present, is a very serious disciplinary offense.
In this case, the Promoter considers that the budgets of that infraction are not given either. He explains that the fact that a magistrate does not refrain from hearing a case does not in itself constitute a disciplinary infraction. To be punishable, the refusal to abstain must be made “with the knowledge” that there was a reason for it.
In the case analyzed, the magistrate denied having a feeling of enmity towards the complainant and there was no prior personal contact between the two. In addition, it must be taken into account that 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.
Sources from the CGPJ reported that the promoter’s decision, which can be appealed before the Permanent Commission of the CGPJ, has been notified to the interested magistrate and the Minister of Justice of the Generalitat of Catalonia and communicated to the president of the TSJ of Catalonia.
