Australia edition
Canada edition
France edition
Germany edition
India edition
Italy edition
Japan edition
Korea edition
Netherlands edition
Spain edition
Taiwan edition
U.K. edition
U.S. editionThe Constitutional Court has rejected the appeal by the Ombudsman, Ángel Gabilondo, against the Supreme Court over the grandchildren law, according to El Mundo, 20minutos and La Vanguardia. La Vanguardia reports that the court does not admit the challenge for processing because it considers it premature. 20minutos and El Mundo add that the vote suspension ordered by the Supreme Court remains in place. El Mundo says that Ramón Sáez and Juan Carlos Campo, a former Justice Minister under Pedro Sánchez, are the only ones backing the appeal. El País quotes that administrative ineffectiveness is no basis for admitting an amparo and that the case remains open at the Supreme Court. El País also describes a clash of criticism between Marchena and Conde-Pumpido following the Criminal Chamber’s new order on the amnesty.
The Constitutional Court makes sure the ordinary routes are exhausted before admitting an amparo, which is why the inadmissibility does not settle the substance. Until the Supreme Court decides, the vote suspension stays in force and the conflict between the two courts remains unresolved.
If you follow politics, the matter sets which court will have the last word on the amnesty, and when. No procedure changes for citizens today, but it affects the institutional climate in the middle of the pre-campaign.
Those who defend the decision recall, according to the order cited by El País, that an amparo requires first exhausting the ordinary route and that the case remains open at the Supreme Court. From that angle, the Constitutional Court respects procedural timing and avoids getting ahead of events.
Justices Sáez and Campo, according to El Mundo, backed the Ombudsman’s appeal, which suggests a different reading within the court itself. El País’s analysis points to an exchange of reproaches between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, with opposing views on the amnesty.
It is confirmed that the appeal was rejected as premature, that the suspension stays and that the case remains at the Supreme Court. It is not confirmed when the Supreme Court will rule or what it will say on the substance. Today it is worth watching whether the Supreme Court sets a date and how the parties react to the order.
El Mundo (Constitutional Court order, 10/21) · 20minutos (vote suspension, 10/21) · La Vanguardia (premature appeal, 10/21) · El País (arguments and Marchena–Conde-Pumpido clash, 10/21)
Constitutional Court rejects the Ombudsman’s appeal over the grandchildren law and keeps the vote suspension in place
The court considers Ángel Gabilondo’s challenge premature and leaves the matter with the Supreme Court, as criticism between the two courts grows
The Constitutional Court has rejected the appeal filed by the Ombudsman, Ángel Gabilondo, against the Supreme Court over the so-called grandchildren law, and keeps in place the suspension of the vote that the Supreme Court had ordered, according to El Mundo, 20minutos and La Vanguardia on Wednesday. La Vanguardia specifies that the high court does not admit Gabilondo’s challenge for processing because it considers it premature. El Mundo adds that the progressive justices Ramón Sáez and Juan Carlos Campo, a former Justice Minister under Pedro Sánchez, are the only ones backing the Ombudsman’s appeal. El País quotes one of the arguments of the order, according to which “administrative ineffectiveness is no basis for admitting an amparo,” and notes that the ruling concludes that the case remains open at the Supreme Court. As a result, the matter returns to the ordinary route without the Constitutional Court having assessed the substance of the request, according to the four outlets.
El País also devotes an analysis to what it describes as the clash between Marchena and Conde-Pumpido over the amnesty. According to the paper, with the new order of the Criminal Chamber it is clear that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are trading criticism and reproaches, holding opposing positions on how the amnesty should be applied. The same outlet explains that the Constitutional Court’s order insists that the case is not exhausted in the ordinary courts and that, therefore, an amparo is not yet possible. 20minutos stresses that the vote suspension handed down by the Supreme Court remains in force after the appeal was rejected. La Vanguardia attributes the inadmissibility to the fact that the Ombudsman’s petition was filed before the Supreme Court had ruled. None of the outlets consulted reports that the Supreme Court has yet set a date to issue its decision on the substance.