The Supreme Court has annulled the appointment of former socialist minister Magdalena Valerio as president of the Council of State for not meeting the legal requirement of a “jurist of recognized prestige.”
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the high court has annulled his appointment agreed by Royal Decree of October 31, 2022, as said person did not meet the requirement of “jurist of recognized prestige” required by article 6 of the Organic Law of the Council of State.
The ruling, presented by the president of the Chamber, Pablo Lucas, upholds an appeal from the “There is Right” Foundation. The magistrates explain that Valerio meets only one of the two requirements established by the aforementioned article of the Law to preside over the Council of State, which is to have experience in State affairs, but not to be a jurist of recognized prestige.
“The literal tenor of the sixth article is crystal clear – points out the Chamber –: there are two conditions that must be met by whoever assumes the presidency of this body. There is no exception, no nuance, nor preference of one over the other. And the reason for both is different but concurrent: to ensure that whoever heads the Council of State meets the double qualification that the legislator wants. That is, legal prestige and expert knowledge of state affairs.”
He adds that “the notorious and outstanding career of Valerio Cordero – minister, deputy, counselor, deputy mayor, councilor, among other public responsibilities – undoubtedly accredits her deep experience in state affairs, but it does not serve to have her as a recognized jurist. prestige. Her resume shows a meritorious civil service career, but it cannot deduce the public esteem in the legal community that recognized prestige implies. Of course, nothing appears in the file in this regard and there is no indication in the procedure about it either.”
As the ruling emphasizes, “it is true that the Constitutional Commission of the Congress of Deputies ruled in favor of Valerio’s appointment. It appreciated in its opinion, as imposed by the third additional provision 1 a) of Law 3/2015, its suitability and the absence of conflict of interest.” Now, the court understands that this judgment “is not equivalent” to the one It must be done when it is necessary to determine whether or not the person appearing before it meets the status of a jurist of recognized prestige.
“Suitability is something different, it indicates adequacy or the quality of appropriateness for something, to continue with the Royal Spanish Academy, but it does not incorporate the specific requirement of the Organic Law, and corresponds to the political nature of this parliamentary body. It is, Well, yours is an assessment of that nature, political and not of a technical-legal nature,” he adds.
