The Sixth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the High Court, with Justice Carlos Lesmes as rapporteur, has rejected the appeal filed by a private individual seeking to annul the CGPJ's decision. This decision had archived the preliminary proceedings opened against the head of the Court of Violence against Women number 1 of Arona, in Tenerife.
The appellant had reported two alleged irregular actions by the magistrate: ordering her detention in court without any resolution and allowing her ex-partner to remove a vehicle without legal authorization. However, the Supreme Court has supported the actions of the Promoter of Disciplinary Action and the Permanent Commission of the CGPJ, which had already ruled out any infraction.
Regarding the alleged detention, the ruling clarifies that it was not ordered by the accused magistrate, but that the police presence responded to a search, arrest, and presentation order issued by another judicial body—the Investigating Court number 2 of Arona—within the framework of criminal proceedings for child abduction. In fact, it is recorded that there was no formal detention, nor any resolution from the Court of Violence against Women in that regard.
Nor did the Court find any irregularity concerning the vehicle. The Supreme Court considers it proven that the magistrate did not authorize, either verbally or formally, the appellant's ex-partner to remove the car. On the contrary, according to the reports, he was informed that he could not approach it due to a protection order and that any action should be carried out by the vehicle owners through legal channels.
The reported facts lack accreditation.
The Court emphasizes that there is no evidence to support the complainant's account and that the documentation in the file expressly refutes it. The Chamber concludes that the reported facts “lack accreditation,” based not only on the magistrate's report but also on certifications from the legal secretary of the Administration of Justice and an official letter from the National Police.
Finally, the Supreme Court stresses that the disciplinary route cannot be used to review judicial decisions, as the CGPJ's authority cannot encroach upon the jurisdictional function. Any disagreement with resolutions must be channeled through the legal remedies provided. Therefore, it dismisses the appeal, confirms the archiving of the proceedings, and declares the actions of the General Council of the Judiciary to be in accordance with the law, imposing on the plaintiff the payment of costs, with a limit of 2,000 euros.
