The T.C. still understands that the right to an ordinary judge, which is provided for by law, requires: It cannot be inferred from the common interpretation of Articles 24.2 and 81.1 E.C. that the rank of an organic law is necessary for any provision which confers jurisdiction on the various ordinary courts. The existence of such rules is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the right to the ordinary court, which is provided for by law, but they do not constitute a “development” of the latter within the meaning of Article 81.1 of the EC. Although the exercise of various rights and freedoms requires implementing rules which define their limits in relation to other rights and create the conditions for their effectiveness, that is not the case with that right, the exercise of which is in any event ensured solely by the application of the law. Finally, we must stress that the right to an ordinary judge, which is provided for by law, is violated when a particular question is wrongly attributed to a particular court and not to the ordinary court235. Security of tenure means that a judge or magistrate is appointed or appointed in accordance with his or her statute and may be removed from office only on reasonable grounds which have been judged or limited and previously determined.237 The right to an ordinary or natural judge applies to all court orders, not just criminal law.233 that the composition of the judicial body is determined by law, following in each particular case the procedure laid down by law for the appointment of its members227. By “law” we must, within the meaning of the provisions of Art. 24.2 E.C. also understand our own Basic Law or, more precisely, the essential requirements of the Constitution that determine the conception of the legal and constitutional judge. Among these requirements, the independence of the judge stands out, since jurisdiction can only be conferred on independent, irremovable, responsible judges and judges subject only to the rule of law (art.
117 para. 1 E.C.). 236. The generality of the legal criteria for determining the judicial judge guarantees the absence of judges ad hoc, and the adequacy of those criteria also ensures that, once the judge in a case has been specifically determined on the basis of the application of the criteria of jurisdiction contained in the laws, his knowledge cannot be deprived of him on the basis of decisions taken by the public authorities. 238 The preliminary legal decision of the court hearing a case concerns the court and not the different chambers or chambers of the same court, which have ex lege the same jurisdiction on the substance of the matter, for which it is sufficient that there are and apply rules of distribution which lay down objective criteria and generality231. Judges and magistrates, if the typical cases coincide29. However, as I shall explain in due course, the right to challenge should be included in the right to a procedure subject to all safeguards230. whereas the judicial body was previously established in accordance with the reservation of rights in this area; The reference to article 24.2 E.C. on the law in conformity with the provisions of articles 53.1 and 86.1 of the Constitution requires that the normative vehicle for determining the judge in this case be the law in the strict sense and not the legislative decree or the provisions emanating from the executive239. whereas its rules of procedure do not allow him to be classified as an ad hoc or exceptional judge; and that the latter vested him with jurisdiction and competence before the event giving rise to the legal action; It is also fully applicable to special military jurisdiction. The recognition by the EC of a “military court” in the purely military field does not preclude the exercise of the rights recognised in Article 24 CI.
Military justice, beyond all its particularities, must be a “jurisdiction”, that is to say, it must be a constitutional manifestation to which effective judicial protection is entrusted as a fundamental right. In practical terms, this means that in proceedings before military courts, the right to an ordinary judge is fully enforceable. [234] Moreover, some judgments understand that this right also includes the guarantee of adequate judicial impartiality, that is, the right to challenge articles.