The price of judicial independence

A Spanish military judge's complaint has been rejected by the General Council of the Judiciary. His claim was that a €98 reduction in pay compromises his judicial independence. According to this article by Maria Peral in El Español:

The petitioner, assigned to a Territorial Military Court, considers that economic independence is an "essential factor" to ensure "true judicial independence" and maintains that judges should be guaranteed a level of remuneration appropriate to their high responsibility and power status. of the State, and "to remove any weakness in the performance of their duties and full dedication."

"In these times of crisis, this should not be neglected, especially considering that this group of military judges and magistrates has been losing the purchasing power of their salaries for several years, compared to other professional groups," he pointed out.

The pay cut has affected a special dedication supplement for which between January and April the lieutenant colonel auditor had to charge 814 euros, but 716 euros were paid, that is, 98 euros less.

In his opinion, the drop in the payroll "lacks a legitimate cause or motive" and has been done "without legal protection and with the exclusion of its application to any other public official group ."

* * * 

The governing body of the judges has reached the conclusion that the events reported by the author lieutenant colonel "do not fall within the orbit of protection of judicial protection . "

It argues that it is not up to the CGPJ Permanent Commission to assess the success or failure of an action by the Ministry of Defense in the remuneration field because this decrease in assets can be reviewed by the contentious-administrative jurisdiction through the corresponding appeal.

"It is clearly appreciated that, in any case, such action, which we remember is limited to reducing the applicant's gross remuneration by 98 euros, lacks any potential to influence the decision-making capacity of the robed member in any process in progress, not constituting, therefore, a circumstance that, objectively considered, could endanger the constitutional value of judicial independence", affirms the resolution of the Council.

In that sense, it reiterates that judicial independence, conceptualized as the absence of pressures or influences that, directly or indirectly, seek to guide judicial decisions apart from exclusive submission to the law, "cannot be disturbed" by an action of the Ministry of Defense consisting of reducing 98 euros the payroll of a military judge.

Therefore, it concludes that the petition for amparo should not be admitted for processing "as it is manifestly unfounded, because the determining elements of disturbance or attack on judicial independence, conceived as unconditional decision-making capacity and exclusively subject to the rule, are not present of the law".

Having exhausted this remedy, one would think the complaining judge will pursue his claim through the alternative avenue noted by the Permanent Commission. Is the loss here de minimis or is the principle of non-diminution of salary implicated regardless of the amount? What would a reasonable, objective observer, fully informed of the facts and circumstances, conclude as to the judge's independence?