Who can go on a general strike and who cannot: the restrictions for police officers, lawyers and the self-employed

The appropriate route would be to approve an organic law, following the legislative procedure of the Congress and Senate, with an absolute majority in the Congress in the final overall vote. Expressly regulating this matter does not, by itself, require amending the Constitution, but it does require reconciling the strike with judicial independence and the rights of those who seek justice.

1. Determine the scope and rank

It would be necessary to define whether the intention is to recognize the right, establish its conditions, or introduce restrictions. These are not constitutionally interchangeable options: passing parliamentary procedures does not guarantee that any content will be constitutional.

The regulation of the core of a fundamental right is connected to the organic law reservation of article 81 of the Constitution. For judges and magistrates, there is also the reservation regarding their legal status in article 122.1. The initiative could amend the Organic Law of the Judiciary and coordinate that amendment with the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The term "organic statute" does not by itself determine the rank of its provisions.

Only if the Constitution itself were to be amended would it be necessary to follow the corresponding amendment procedure. If article 28.2 were affected, the aggravated procedure would apply: two-thirds of both Chambers, dissolution, ratification by the new Cortes, approval by two-thirds, and a mandatory referendum.

2. Initiate the processing

• Government bill: after its approval by the Council of Ministers, it would be sent to the Congress with a statement of reasons and background. It does not require consideration.
• Bill proposal: it could come from constitutionally empowered subjects. In the Congress, it can be presented by a group or a deputy with fourteen other signatures. It must pass the consideration stage: the Plenary's decision to begin processing it. If it comes from the Senate and was considered there, that vote is not repeated.

The Board would order its publication and referral to the competent committee. It would also qualify its organic nature, after hearing the Board of Spokespersons, in accordance with article 130 of the Congress Regulations.

3. Amendments, committee, and Plenary

The ordinary deadline for amendments is fifteen working days, subject to modification. If a bill receives total amendments, the Plenary first debates its return or an alternative text. Proposals already considered have particularities, including the general exclusion of return amendments.

Then, a working group studies the articles and amendments and prepares a report. The committee debates and approves its report; the Plenary resolves the maintained amendments and votes on the text.

Organic approval requires an absolute majority in the final overall vote. If not reached, the text returns to the committee for a new report within a month. If that majority is again lacking, it is rejected.

4. Senate and final approval

The Senate may approve the text, introduce amendments, or veto it. The ordinary constitutional deadline is two months, reduced to twenty calendar days for projects declared urgent. The veto requires an absolute majority.

If there is a veto, the Congress needs an absolute majority to override it when it concerns an organic law. If there are amendments, it decides on them and submits the resulting whole to an absolute majority; if this fails, the initial text of the Congress is ratified and the Senate modifications are rejected.

Finally, royal sanction proceeds within fifteen days, promulgation, and publication.

5. Material guarantees

The text should specify call, prior notice, remuneration effects, responsibilities, and continuity guarantees: on-call duties, detainees, and urgent actions. It should also distinguish the judicial independence of judges from the organization of the Public Prosecutor's Office, avoiding interference in judicial decisions and protecting effective judicial protection.

The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is the governing body of the Judiciary in Spain. Its main function is to guarantee the independence of judges and magistrates through the exercise of powers over their professional careers and the governmental functioning of judicial bodies. Its legal framework is mainly found in article 122 of the Constitution and in the Organic Law 6/1985, of the Judiciary, especially in its book VIII.

1. Judicial government, not administration of justice

The CGPJ does not judge or review sentences: that power belongs exclusively to courts and tribunals. It also cannot order a judge how to resolve a procedure nor replace judicial appeals. Its task is to protect judicial independence and exercise the governmental powers recognized by law, without assuming all administrative responsibilities of the Administration of Justice.

2. Judicial career and appointments

An essential part of its functions affects the professional trajectory of judges and magistrates:

• Selection and training: it participates in the selection of members of the judicial career and develops their initial and continuous training competencies, especially through the Judicial School.
• Assignments and promotions: it resolves competitions, promotions, and appointments attributed by legislation, according to applicable requirements and procedures.
• Administrative situations: it decides on permits, leaves, absences, retirements, and other professional situations under legally established terms.
• High judicial positions: it intervenes in the appointment of Supreme Court magistrates and presidencies of courts and courts of appeal. It proposes the appointment of the president of the Supreme Court and of the Council itself.

Additionally, it proposes the appointment of two magistrates of the Constitutional Court and must be heard before the appointment of the Attorney General. This does not mean it governs the Public Prosecutor's Office.

3. Inspection and disciplinary responsibility

The Council exercises superior inspection of the courts to verify the functioning of judicial services and detect deficiencies. This inspection does not allow controlling the legal interpretation of judges nor correcting their rulings.

It also exercises disciplinary power over judges and magistrates: it investigates possible professional infractions and adopts corresponding decisions through the provided bodies and procedures. Disciplinary responsibility is distinct from criminal or civil liability and must respect defense guarantees.

4. Regulations, reports, and proposals

The CGPJ can approve regulations on its organization, personnel, and functioning, as well as develop certain matters of the judicial statute within legal authorization. It cannot amend laws nor freely regulate any aspect of justice.

It issues reports on draft bills and general provisions related, among other matters, to judicial organization, the statute of judges and magistrates, procedural rules, and certain criminal or penitentiary aspects. These reports do not equate to approving the norm nor replace the decision of the Government or the Cortes.

5. Management and relationship with other institutions

• Own budget: it prepares and executes its budget and controls its compliance.
• Legal information: it organizes the official publication of judicial rulings and develops documentation tasks.
• Annual report: it informs the General Cortes about the state, functioning, and needs of justice, being able to propose improvements.
• Cooperation and coordination: it participates, within its powers, in institutional relations and international judicial cooperation.

Finally, its powers must be distinguished from those of the Ministry of Justice and autonomous communities regarding personal and material resources. Also, when the Council is acting in a caretaker capacity, the law limits certain powers, especially appointments: its ordinary powers are not fully maintained in that situation.

In Spain, an employer can only carry out a defensive and temporary lockout, linked to a strike or other collective work disruption and justified by one of the legally provided causes. It is not enough that there is a strike, nor can the lockout be used as a general pressure measure on the workforce.

The essential requirements are found in articles 12 to 15 of Royal Decree-Law 17/1977, on labor relations. This figure should not be confused with the definitive closure of a company for economic reasons.

1. Existence of a collective conflict and a specific cause

Article 12 allows closing the workplace only "in case of strike or any other form of collective irregularity in the work regime," when at least one of these circumstances occurs:

• Notorious danger of violence to people or serious damage to property. A generic concern is not enough: the danger required by the norm must exist.
• Illegal occupation of the center or any of its dependencies, or a certain danger that it will occur. The law requires illegality of the occupation or certainty of the danger, not mere suspicion.
• Serious impediment to the normal production process due to the volume of absences or irregularities in work. A reduction in activity alone does not equate to the serious impediment required.

Therefore, the decision must be supported by facts that fit one of those causes. The mere call for a strike or losses associated with the conflict do not, by themselves, authorize closure.

2. Defensive, not offensive purpose

The closure must respond to the above circumstances and serve to protect people, property, or the possibility of resuming activity. The preamble of the Royal Decree-Law itself states that only a "response" closure is valid.

It cannot be used preventively to prevent a future strike nor maintained as punishment or pressure once the cause that justified it has disappeared.

3. Communication to the labor authority

The employer does not need prior administrative authorization. However, article 13.1 requires notifying the labor authority within twelve hours from when the closure is carried out. It is a subsequent communication, not a permission request.

The cited articles do not establish a general mandatory prior notice to the workers' representation. As a practical precaution, it is advisable to document the facts, the time of closure, the affected centers, and the communication made; that documentation does not replace the existence of a legal cause.

4. Indispensable duration and reopening

According to article 13.2, the closure must be limited to the time indispensable to ensure the resumption of activity or eliminate the causes that motivated it. There is no fixed duration that automatically allows maintaining it.

Also, according to article 14, the employer must reopen when the labor authority requires it, within the indicated period, allowing the staff to return. Having legally initiated the closure does not permit prolonging it without justification.

5. Consequences of non-compliance

Article 12.2 refers, for the effects of lawful closure on affected personnel, to paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of article 6. The legality of the closure and its effects can be examined by the labor jurisdiction.

If the closure is illegal, article 15 establishes the obligation to reopen and pay the wages accrued by those who stopped working as a consequence, without prejudice to corresponding sanctions. It also provides consequences for failing to comply with the reopening requirement.