The renovation of the General Judicial Council (CGPJ) remains a clear priority for policymakers in Madrid, a stance that resonated across Brussels this Friday. This renewed emphasis came hours after the People’s Party signaled a pause in negotiations, citing the need to reform the crime of sedition. The broader message from European authorities was straightforward: renewing the Council for the Judiciary is essential to maintaining the rule of law and judicial independence in Spain. This commitment was reiterated by a Brussels official, who underscored that the priority status for the CGPJ aligns with the position outlined in the European Commission’s Rule of Law Report published earlier this year, a document still considered valid and influential. The spokesperson stressed that accelerating judicial appointments should be treated as a top objective, while also noting that such reforms must proceed without diminishing the bond the public holds with the ongoing sedition reform process initiated by the government.
The official clarified that Brussels had proposed this course of action last July, a proposal that remains central to the ongoing Rule of Law assessment. In this latest cycle, the emphasis was squarely on addressing gaps in judicial appointments as a matter of urgency. The commentary stopped short of evaluating political party dynamics, instead focusing on the structural need to reduce delays and enhance judicial capacity. The aim is to strengthen the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that executive and legislative influences are kept at bay when judges render decisions that shape Spain’s legal landscape.
From the outside, the EU’s attention to judicial autonomy gained fresh momentum when Didier Reynders, the European Commissioner for Justice, travelled to Spain at the end of September. He met with representatives from the national government, opposition parties, and the judiciary, signaling that Brussels continues to monitor the situation closely and maintains a clear recommendation. The commissioner’s statements stressed a similar objective: shield the judiciary from excessive external pressures and safeguard its impartiality. In practice, this means bolstering institutional checks and ensuring that the appointment process remains transparent and merit-based, a move widely welcomed by those who argue that strong judicial independence is a cornerstone of democratic governance in North America as well as Europe.