CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 16 May 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53193/21 Juan Luis LORENZO BRAGADO against Spain and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 25 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are Spanish judges and members of the Francisco de Vitoria Judges Association ( Asociación Judicial Francisco de Vitoria ). They presented their candidatures to be elected as members of the General Council of the Judiciary ( Consejo General del Poder Judicial – “CGPJ”), the judges’ governing body, whose functions include appointments, promotions, inspections and disciplinary procedures of judges. On 4 September 2018 the Parliament received the list of candidates. To date, no plenary session has been convened to select the members of the CGPJ owing to insufficient parliamentary support. On 4 December 2018 the mandates of the members of the CGPJ expired. Their substitutes have not been appointed and the current members have been exercising their functions ad interim . All appointments have been effectively on hold since then. On 14 October 2020 the applicants lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, invoking their right to be elected as public officials (Article 23   §   2 of the Spanish Constitution). On 4 May 2021 the Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible as lodged out of time. On 3 June 2021 the Constitutional Court issued a clarification that the time ‑ limit for lodging the amparo appeal had to be calculated either from 4   December 2018 (expiry of the mandate of the members of the CGPJ) or 4   December 2019 (latest elections to the Parliament). In both cases, the amparo appeal lodged on 14 October 2020 had been outside the statutory three-month time-limit. The applicants complain about the lack of possibility to be appointed to the CGPJ, and, in particular, under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention, that their right of access to a fair trial was violated because the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring their amparo appeal inadmissible was arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (compare with Baka v. Hungary [GC], no.   20261/12, §§ 100-18, 23 June 2016; Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§ 44-47, 25 September 2018; Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no.   43572/18, §§ 257-264, 15 March 2022; and Bilgen v. Turkey , no.   1571/07, §§ 47-64, 9 March 2021)?   If yes, was the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4 May 2021 declaring the amparo appeal inadmissible compatible with the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and in particular with the right of access to court (see, for example, Grzeda , cited above, §§   295-327; Károly Nagy v.   Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 62, 14 September 2017; Gajtani v.   Switzerland , no. 43730/07, §§ 61-64 and 75, 9 September 2014; Roche v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §   120, 19 October 2005)?   2.     Is Article 8 of the Convention (respect of private life) applicable to the situation where the applicants’ candidatures to be elected as members of the General Council of the Judiciary have not been processed since 2018 (compare, for example, with Denisov , cited above, §§ 92-117; Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no.   15227/19, §§ 358-64, 9 February 2021; and Oleksandr Volkov v.   Ukraine , no.   21722/11, §§ 165-66, ECHR 2013)?   If so, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   Appendix   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 53193/21 Lorenzo Bragado v. Spain 22/10/2021 Juan Luis LORENZO BRAGADO 1962 Santa Cruz de Tenerife Spanish Vicente Jesús TOVAR SABIO 2. 53707/21 Jaén Vallejo v. Spain 22/10/2021 Manuel María JAÉN VALLEJO 1953 Madrid Spanish Vicente Jesús TOVAR SABIO 3. 53848/21 Garcia de Yzaguirre v. Spain 22/10/2021 Mónica GARCIA DE YZAGUIRRE 1962 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Spanish Vicente Jesús TOVAR SABIO 4. 54582/21 Estevez Benito v. Spain 22/10/2021 Rafael ESTÉVEZ BENITO 1973 Caceres Spanish Vicente Jesús TOVAR SABIO 5. 54703/21 Tardon Olmos v. Spain 22/10/2021 Maria TARDON OLMOS 1957 Madrid Spanish Vicente Jesús TOVAR SABIO 6. 54731/21 Baena Sierra v. Spain 22/10/2021 Jose Antonio BAENA SIERRA Malaga Spanish Vicente Jesús TOVAR SABIO