Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244

October 2020

Alonso Saura v. Spain (communicated case) - 18326/19

Article 1 of Protocol No. 12

General prohibition of discrimination

Allegations of gender-based non-appointment to high judicial position of female judge: communicated

The applicant, a female judge, applied unsuccessfully to the position of Presidency of the High Court of Murcia, alon g with two other candidates (one later withdrew; the other, M.A.P.H., a male judge, was appointed). According to the call for candidates, it was a discretional appointment. The decision was made by the General Council of the Judiciary.

The applicant conte sted the decision before the courts, with the Supreme Court upholding her appeal and declaring the decision of the Council null and void. They argued, inter alia , that when comparing the objective merits of the two candidates, the applicant was in a more a dvantageous position. From this point of view, the reasoning of the Council’s decision was insufficient in order to justify the appointment of M.A.P.H. as it had not explained why the assessment of his action plan outweighed the applicant’s higher objectiv e merits. The General Council subsequently removed and then re-appointed M.A.P.H., this time reasoning exhaustively why his merits, and especially his action plan, were better than the applicant’s. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the new deci sion.

The applicant complains that she has incurred discrimination on grounds of gender, in connection with the fundamental right of access to public office and functions in conditions of equality. She argues that this discrimination was wrongly justified as discretion in the assessment of one of the requisites of the call for candidatures (the action plan), and that gender-based discrimination in the appointment of higher posts in the Spanish judiciary is commonplace.

She also complains that the General C ouncil of the Judiciary did not execute the initial domestic court judgment in its own terms, which should have explained why the assessment of the other candidate’s action plan was in fact of more importance than the other criteria set in the call for can didatures – rather than carrying out a new assessment of the candidates’ merits.

Communicated under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, Article 6 § 1 and Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes