The Supreme Court annuls two appointments of general directors due to the “vague motivation” used by the Government


Share post:

The Supreme Court has annulled the appointments of the general directors of Sports, Albert Soler Sicilyand the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Jesus Maria Martin Blancodue to the “vague and generic motivation” used by the Government to justify his appointment.

According to a statement released by the Supreme Court, the magistrates of the Third Contentious-Administrative Chamber have maintained that the Executive did not argue sufficiently well the reasons for taking advantage of the exception to the general rule, which establishes that the general directors must be career officials of the A-1 subgroup.

The aforementioned ruling, for which magistrate Luis Díez-Picazo was the rapporteur, thus considers the appeal of the Federation of Associations of the Superior Bodies of the State Civil Administration (FEDECA) against the Royal Decrees as well as against the sections of Royal Decree 311/2021, of May 4, on the basic organic structure of the Ministries. They included the Government’s reasons for excluding these two General Directorates from the aforementioned general rule.

The Supreme maintains that it is not argued “what actions could not be carried out by career officials”

The Chamber explains that from reading both documents “it is not clear what specific actions or initiatives are those that could not be carried out by career officials.” “The transcribed passages are still a manifestation of a type of official literature that, in a solemn tone, uses many words to say very little,” he criticizes.

Along these lines, the Chamber says that it is not able to perceive where the “special characteristics” or the “exceptional circumstance” of the General Directorate of Sports and the General Directorate of Persons with Disabilities reside.

To this they also add that the federation that denounced did mention bodies or scales of civil servants from the A1 subgroup that, due to their preparation, these General Directorates could carry out and that, in the face of this, the State Attorney “It has been limited to arguing that these bodies or scales do not have sufficient specific training in the matters concerned.”

“But this objection is, again, generic: it does not explain in any detail why the types of officials mentioned by the appellant are not suitable to occupy these two General Directorates“, adds the ruling.

However, the ruling does make it clear that the reason for the annulment of “these acts is not the absence in those named of the general suitability requirements, but the invalidity of the regulatory basis on which they were based.”


Related articles