In a battle for control over the Spanish judiciary, the country's two major political parties, the Socialist Party (PSOE) and the Popular Party (PP), continue to engage in a heated political standoff. The impasse has left Spain's General Council of the Judiciary, the body responsible for appointing top judges, in a precarious position, with 23 out of 79 Supreme Court positions yet to be filled.

The ongoing dispute reflects the wider political agenda of the PP, which accuses the government of eroding the rule of law rather than focusing on economic management or corruption. The PSOE and PP have been unable to secure the necessary three-fifths support from parliament to make new appointments, leading to an interim operation of Spain's highest judicial authority, dominated by judges appointed by the PP in 2013. This situation has drawn concerns from the European Union (EU).

The EU's 2023 justice scorecard placed Spain 23rd among EU member states in terms of public perception of the independence of courts and judges. Political pressure was cited as the most common cause of interference. European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, has recently stressed the urgency of making new appointments to Spain's General Council of the Judiciary.

Judge Joaquim Bosch, a spokesperson for the Judges for Democracy association, notes that the ongoing dispute damages the credibility of public institutions and highlights the susceptibility of the Spanish justice system to party political interference.

The politicization of the judiciary in Spain has been a recurring theme for decades. In 1985, the Socialist government introduced reforms allowing parliament to appoint members of the judiciary council with the aim of limiting the influence of judges with ties to the Franco era.

Tensions have also arisen between Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's parliamentary allies and the courts. The ill-feeling stems, in part, from a contentious 2022 sexual consent law overseen by the leftist party Podemos, which inadvertently led to reduced sentences for numerous sex offenders. Additionally, Sánchez's decision to grant amnesty to those involved in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, a move previously considered impossible, has further strained relations with the judiciary.

The clash between Sánchez's government and the judiciary has been fueled by discussions of "lawfare," which refers to the use of legal systems and institutions to target opponents. This has particularly resonated with Catalan nationalists who believe state institutions have acted against them. The government's willingness to discuss lawfare has enraged judges who argue that politicians should not interfere in their work.

The conflict between the executive and judicial branches shows no signs of abating as both sides maintain their grievances. Political scientist Lluís Orriols warns of a clear conflict of powers, with the judiciary defending itself against perceived attacks from parliament and Catalan institutions, while the executive accuses the judiciary of overreaching.

The ongoing political standoff over the judiciary leaves the Spanish legal system in limbo, raising concerns about the independence of the courts and the rule of law. As the impasse continues, the future appointment of judges to Spain's General Council of the Judiciary remains a matter of priority, with implications for the country's democratic institutions and public perception of judicial independence.