In Spain, any citizen without recourse can appear in court and defend himself on his side. It is not a concession: it is a constitutional guarantee recognized in Article 119 of the Spanish Constitution.
Free legal aid is one of the pillars of a good state, as it ensures that access to justice does not depend on economic capacity.
But this reality, which works for the citizen, is less visible.
This doesn’t exist just for you until, thanks to the work of the thousands of professionals (procuradores and abogadas/os) who make it possible, in conditions that reveal a deep inconsistency in the system.
Your law is clear. The service provided by prosecution and slavery professionals must be “worthy and adequately remunerated”.
However, the reform of this law brought about a significant change: Article 40 was changed from the name “retribution for baremo” to “retribution for baremo”.
Juice in Spain.
No, it’s a minor change.
It is not the same as compensation.
The award recognizes the value of professional work.
In exchange, compensation is limited to partial compensation for costs or casualties.
When the legislator decides to replace one concept with another, he redefines the model. And in this case they feel at odds with what the motif exposition proclaims, which is followed by the demand for a dignified and sufficient reward.
The consequences are obvious. Over the years, the professionals of the public prosecutor’s office and attorney They supported the system and continue to support it by bringing their own resourcestaking on structural costs and receiving compensation that in many cases does not cover the service provided.
“It does not seem reasonable that access to justice is articulated on a model that is in the right form for those who guarantee it.”
This dysfunction has also become particularly relevant: territorial desire.
The same public service is not compensated in the same way throughout the territory of the state, unless each autonomous community is its own.
This fragment in the area connected with the constitutional law brings balance to the coherence of the system and serious doubts from the point of view of the principle of equality of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It does not seem reasonable that access to justice should be articulated on a model that is in the right form for those who guarantee it.
The problem is especially visible in the moment of jubilation.
After decades of providing an essential public service, many prosecutorial and legal professionals have access to their pensions (and therefore in many cases quite inadequate) until that work really translates into the performance it deserves.
This further accentuated the feeling of being unprotected and deepened the unfairness of the situation.
The system has not incorporated this sustained effort over time into its social protection, so the economic coverage in the cheer does not seem to be commensurate with the employment function. They directly contributed to the effectiveness of the right to effective judicial protection, but when i stop exercising i don’t get adequate cover.
Here the question becomes technical and becomes a question of justice. Article 50 of the Constitution mandates guaranteeing economic sufficiency in the third age.
When we combine this requirement with the paper, we desempeñamos professionals from the prosecution and abogacy, it is difficult to argue that the actual situation is consistent with this mandate.
At the moment there is a legislative reform initiative to recognize certain periods of activity of professional deportees as designated as an “act of justice”.
If this criterion is applied in other areas, it should be reasonably considered in relation to the professionals of the public prosecutor’s office and the lawyer who supported the basic public service linked to fundamental rights.
This is not an abstract recommendation, but rather a concrete solution. These include recognizing these periods as a result of cheer (both for people who are happy and for people who are therefore underperforming), creating specific supplements or improving regulatory bases.
But it is also necessary to act at the root of the problem.
It is necessary and unacceptable to overcome the compensation model and introduce a truly living wage.
It demands to enforce the configuration of a homogeneous system throughout the territory of the state through the unification of bars that will guarantee equality and eliminate real distortions, alignment in height, in accordance with the highest bars applied in the territory of the state and closer to a dignified and adequately compensated salary.
Free legal aid cannot be followed by the promotion of quiet efforts, and occasionally it is economically unsustainable for people to do what is possible.
*** Javier Carlos Sánchez García is a court prosecutor and dean of the Illustrious College of Procuradores in A Coruña.
Leave a Reply