⚖️🏛️ Supreme Court rebukes Constitutional Court on judicial appointments

Oneliner

The Supreme Court of Spain has reaffirmed its doctrine against political discretion in judicial appointments, particularly in response to the Constitutional Court's endorsement of such practices. The High Court emphasized the necessity for explicit, justifiable reasons for discretionary selections to prevent clientelism. This ruling underscores the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining the integrity of the appointment process, rejecting any notion that constitutional bodies should be exempt from scrutiny. The Supreme Court's stance aims to reinforce the rule of law and ensure that appointments are based on merit rather than arbitrary preferences.

Key points

• Supreme Court reaffirms strict criteria for judicial appointments to prevent clientelism.
• Constitutional Court's endorsement of political discretion in appointments challenged.
• Judicial review of discretionary appointments emphasized as essential for rule of law.
• Supreme Court warns against arbitrary decision-making in high-level appointments.

Links

• El Mundo: El Supremo ignora al Constitucional y le planta cara por avalar los 'dedazos' en Fiscalía: "Ver así las cosas supondría un gravísimo retroceso en el Estado de Derecho"
• ABC: Aviso del Supremo al Constitucional: «Los nombramientos discrecionales no pueden responder a una preferencia caprichosa, clientelar o partidista»

Facts

• Supreme Court ruling published on 16 February 2026.
• Constitutional Court previously endorsed the appointment of Eduardo Esteban as Head Prosecutor.
• Supreme Court emphasizes the need for explicit reasons in discretionary appointments.
• Judicial review of discretionary appointments is deemed essential for rule of law.

Quotes

• This jurisprudential doctrine on the CGPJ’s discretionary appointments... expands the effective scope of the rule of law into the delicate area of selecting people for the senior judicial and administrative spheres — Supreme Court
• The problem with this way of seeing things... would represent a grave regression in the conquests of the Rule of Law — Supreme Court

Article