REPLY OF MS. ANNA CAVAZZINI, PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL MARKET AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, EUROPEAN PARLEAMENT.
Dear Mr. Ribas-Alegret,
I would first like to thank you for your mail and time. I appreciate your interest in this matter.
Your points are indeed very interesting and definitely concern a controversy that both the European Union and the Spanish government have been conducting for a long time. However, I would also like to mention that the Spanish government is seemingly committed to adapting its legal framework to European rules. As I happen to know, the government has published and communicated new proposals only a few months ago. In this sense, I do not believe that an EU infringement procedure is further necessary; instead, I think that the best way of ‘approaching’ this issue is by not opposing the government’s commitment for legislative reforms.
REPLICA
Dear Ms. Cavazzini,
Thank you very much for your kind and prompt reply.
First, I must specify that the infringement proceedings ‘Procuradores’ have several items, whereas my complaint is focused only on the exclusive reserve to the Procuradores.
I do not know the data that you mention, because my requests for access to information (1) were systematically dismissed in whole. However, according to the web of the Spanish Parliament, the content of the legal reform has not changed since the Council of Ministers’ project was filed the 1.10.2020 (2).
Concerning this legislative draft, the Council of Judiciary (‘Consejo General del Poder Judicial’) (3) issued a legal report (4), which recognize the deception,
71. ‘… our conclusion on this point is frankly unfavorable: as regards the failure to address the nuclear issue objected to by the [European] Comisión -the exclusive reservation of functions to the Procurador-, our conclusion is that the draft again fails the purposes that justify its issuance and maintains the Spanish State in a situation of non-compliance with Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and the Directive on Services.’
74. ‘As we have pointed out in § 19 of this report, the [European] Commission has understood that the exclusive reserve to the Procuradores of the functions of «technical representation» and of communication of the parties with the courts and tribunals constitutes a restriction to the services which can be provided by other legal operators -lawyers-, without an understandable justification in overriding reasons of general interest and, thereby it is contrary to Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and the Directive on Services.’
Conclusions, fourth. ‘… the report is totally unfavorable and considers that the draft does not satisfy at all the purposes of the reform or the requirements of the European Commission, and that this determines the persistence of infractions of Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and the Directive on Services, infractions that will persist as long as is maintained in favor of the Procuradores the exclusive reserve of the «technical representation» and acts of communication, with the exclusion of the lawyers.’
The same opinion is reflected in my complaint of the 23.04.2013 before the Commission.
Ready to move definitely from Catalonia forced by the corruption of the Spanish judicial system, ‘I have a dream’: having contributed to remove the Procurador ‘feudal’ barrier, restoring the single market and the fundamental right of access to justice under Arts. 19(2) TEU, 47 CFREU and Directive on Services.
I thank you again for your attention, inviting you to commit such right goals by follow up the ‘Procuradores’ affair, so that the good words of the Spanish authorities may become reality, avoiding the EU Court of Justice intervention.
_______________________
1. Requests for access to information, three times before the European Commission’s Secretariat-General the 28.07.2013, with confirmatory petition of 23.08.2013; the 21.12.2015; and the 8.05.2017, with confirmatory petition of 10.07.2017. As well to the Ministry of Economy and Business the 23.06.2018; and to the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs the 8.08.2020, with review to the Council of Transparency of 22.10.2020.
3. The ‘Consejo General del Poder Judicial’ is the highest governing institution of the Judiciary in Spain.
4. ‘Informe sobre el Anteproyecto de Ley por la que se modifica la Ley 34/2006, de 30 de octubre’ y otras disposiciones, pp. 25-34 and 36. https://www.poderjudicial.es/stfls/CGPJ/COMISI%C3%93N%20DE%20ESTUDIOS%20E%20INFORMES/INFORMES%20DE%20LEY/FICHERO/20190131%20Informe%20Anteproyecto%20ley%20acceso%20a%20profesiones%20de%20abogado%20y%20procurador%2019.18.pdf
Anna Cavazzini, MEP, IMCO President, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.
PODER JUDICIAL - Magí Ribas Alegret 