The General Council of the Judiciary has sanctioned a magistrate from Court of First Instance number 2 of Tarragona with a fine of 500 euros. The resolution considers that the judge committed a minor offense by delaying the processing of judicial proceedings.
The brawl tripled in three years
The disciplinary file was opened when the magistrate had 296 pending rulings. This figure contrasts with the 86 unresolved cases that appeared in his record during May 2022. The inspection body detected a selective abandonment of certain cases while prioritizing the completion of others.
Alba Tasies, lawyer at the firm Aranda, Melgar y Tasies Advocats, initiated the initial complaint. Her claim focused on the delay of a procedure started in 2022. The oral trial took place in November 2023, but the sentence did not arrive until November 2025.
The court's workload exceeded official modules in a sustained manner. Official data reflect an excess of 191% in 2022 and 188% in 2023. The situation worsened in subsequent years, reaching 197% in 2024 and 278% in 2025.
The sanctioned judge's individual performance was much higher than the average. It reached 235% in 2022 and 192% in 2023. In 2024 it rose to 264% and closed the first quarter of 2025 with 318% productivity compared to what was established.
Three vowels demand a larger fine
The disciplinary commission did not act unanimously. Three magistrates issued a dissenting opinion to increase the sanction to 2,000 euros for a serious offense. They considered that the head of the court was fully aware that his selective management generated unjustified delays.
"It can be difficult to understand how, with such performance, it can accumulate, over years, the pending matters that are proven, which have led to complaints and reports from the affected citizens" - Dissenting opinion of three magistrates of the disciplinary commission of the CGPJ
The majority of the room opted for the lenient route. They argued that the excess of activity led to poor organization. The resolution points to a misguided management of the scheduling agenda that prevented everything celebrated from being resolved in reasonable times.
The text indicates that excessive zeal dragged the magistrate into this situation. If he had limited the assignments to a 120% dedication, no one would have reproached him for passivity and he would have been able to resolve all the assigned cases.
The final document concludes that the high pendency coexists with a large number of resolved matters. This contradiction shows that the judge ended up opting to finalize the greatest number of matters possible to the detriment of global agility.
The fine of 500 euros becomes final after the proposal of the three dissenting members was dismissed. The magistrate will have to pay the amount for the minor offense noted in his actions within the Court of First Instance number 2 of Tarragona.