OPEN MESSAGE · JUDICIAL GOVERNANCE · SOURCE CONTROL

Who watches the judge when the question is no longer simply whether a ruling was legally correct?

We are not asking the General Council of the Judiciary to replace appellate courts or adopt our conclusions. We ask something narrower and verifiable: identify what question each CGPJ body received, what evidence it examined, what fell outside its remit, and what official verification resolved — or can still resolve — the remaining issues.

The institutional mark is used only to identify the body. It does not imply awareness, cooperation, affiliation or endorsement by the CGPJ.

CGPJ IN 60 SECONDS

Judicial independence does not mean absence of institutional accountability.

DISCIPLINARY PROMOTER

Promotor de la Acción Disciplinaria

Receives complaints and performs the legally defined initiation/investigation functions in judicial disciplinary matters. The public question is what was actually examined and what evidence supported the decision.

INSPECTION

Inspection Service

Operating under the Permanent Commission, it checks and controls the functioning of judicial services. That is different from deciding whether a judgment was legally right.

DECISION

Disciplinary Commission · Permanent Commission · Plenary

Different bodies have different powers. Public accountability begins by assigning each question to the correct body rather than treating “the CGPJ” as a single black box.

WHY IT MATTERS

Judicial governance also protects property, enterprise and effective access to justice.

A judicial decision can affect ownership, possession, liquidation, enforcement, creditor priority, company survival and access to remedies. Independence protects judges from improper pressure. Inspection, discipline, recusal and appeals exist so that independence operates within law and verifiable safeguards.

We do not suggest that the CGPJ can reverse judgments outside lawful remedies. We ask whether, when a complaint raises conduct, appearance of impartiality or court functioning, the competent mechanism performs the verification that the law assigns to it.

OUR RECORD

DI 169/2026 → Administrative Appeal 286/2026

14 May 2026
The Promotor archived DI 169/2026.

15 June 2026
Appeal formally presented through AGE/RedSARA: REGAGE26e00056359487, with four files.

18 June 2026
Appeals later stated that the appeal entered the CGPJ on that date.

Appeal 286/2026
Appeals confirmed processing and joinder of the filing presented on 15 July.

28 July 2026
Five-PDF supplement: REGAGE26e00069061338. Its substantive treatment remains to be verified.

Documentary clarification · verified to 16 August 2026. 15 June is the recurrent's registry-presentation date; 18 June is the CGPJ-entry date later reported by the Appeals Section. They are distinct events. An official 060 notice adds a third registry event: on 22 June the appeal is recorded as sent to destination at the CGPJ General Registry. Those three states come from different primary sources and should neither be conflated nor treated by themselves as evidence of irregularity; the administrative index and internal routing record are needed to reconcile them. A later Promotor agreement dated 10 July resolved to remain with the archive agreed on 14 May and, on its primary text, does not establish a referral to the Inspection Service. The specific LPAM–Judge module is not among the four files listed on the 15 June receipt; its first currently verified formal presentation in the appeal route is the 28 July five-PDF supplement. The 28 July receipt identifies the Registry and Archive Unit, while an official 060 notice dated 30 July records onward routing to the CGPJ General Registry. Presentation or registry routing ≠ incorporation into the file ≠ examination ≠ acceptance ≠ truth of the allegations. Joinder of the filing presented on 15 July was expressly confirmed by Appeals. We have not located equivalent confirmation of incorporation or substantive examination of the 28 July package or, through 16 August, a later substantive Appeal 286/2026 decision in the reviewed email.

The 14 May archive and its reasoning remain part of the record: the Promotor treated the issues raised as outside disciplinary misconduct and within the jurisdictional sphere. The originating communication, in turn, had expressly framed its request as institutional verification of supervision and said that it did not seek review of the legal content of judicial rulings. This page publishes both positions and does not treat the existence of the appeal, later filings or their registry routing as proof that the archive was wrong.

THE JUDGE — BEYOND THE RULINGS

The audit is not limited to whether we agree with his decisions.

The internal register requires separate review of any material concerning appearance of impartiality, third-party assertions of access/contact, witness accounts, potentially recusal-relevant circumstances, procedural treatment, supervision of the insolvency administrator, delay/functioning and the sequence of what was formally before the court before patrimonial decisions. Each item must be classified as verified fact, documented allegation, witness account, inference or open evidential gap.

For the appearance-of-impartiality module, the public question is not to invite readers to infer influence. It is whether finite allegations supported by contemporaneous sources and witness material were checked against official records capable of confirming, rejecting or materially narrowing them.

Court track → · Insolvency institutional accountability →

FIVE QUESTIONS

We do not ask for trust. We ask for traceability.

1 · Promoter / record

In DI 169/2026 and Appeal 286/2026, what material was actually examined, as distinct from merely presented, routed or received?

2 · Finite verification

Were the official records identified in the appearance-of-impartiality submissions obtained or checked? If not, what legal or evidential reason made that unnecessary?

3 · Competence

Which issues were classified as judicial merits, discipline, inspection/court functioning, LAJ/court-office matters, or outside CGPJ remit?

4 · Permanent Commission / Inspection

Was any court-functioning dimension arising from the cumulative history of Insolvency 36/2012 examined? Which primary report, check or decision records that examination?

5 · Current remedy

Which CGPJ route can now provide a reasoned, auditable answer to any point not resolved by the DI archive or the appeal?

The strongest defence of the CGPJ and the judge should also be visible.

An adverse ruling can be entirely lawful; many questions belong to appeals, not discipline; an act may belong to an LAJ or another authority; an observed interaction may be ordinary professional courtesy; a third party's assertion of access may be inaccurate; limitation, insufficient evidence or a proper jurisdictional boundary may apply. Our standard is to publish those alternatives and identify the document that could distinguish them.

Correction and right of reply

If the CGPJ, the judicial body or any affected person identifies a primary record that corrects, completes or contradicts this register, we invite its identification. The classification and page should change when the evidence requires it.

Justice Map → · Insolvency 36/2012 → · Public Prosecution Service →