The political party Comuns, part of the Sumar alliance, has initiated criminal proceedings against the chair of one of the chambers of Spain’s Supreme Court. The case was brought before the court over suspicions of disclosing confidential information related to the sentencing of the country’s Attorney General. MEP Jaume Asens signed the complaint, alleging that Judge Andrés Martínez Arrieta may have broken the law by publicly stating his willingness to deliver the verdict while deliberations were still ongoing.
The incident under investigation occurred on November 18. Two days before the official announcement of the Attorney General’s verdict, Arrieta spoke at an event organized by the Colegio de Abogados de Madrid. This organization had previously acted as one of the prosecutors in the case against Álvaro García Ortiz. During his speech, the judge jokingly remarked that he needed to end the meeting to prepare the verdict in the Attorney General’s case. The comment drew laughter from the audience, but according to the plaintiffs, it hinted at the court’s internal proceedings, which should remain confidential.
The complaint notes that the public interpreted Arrieta’s remarks as disclosing confidential information regarding the ongoing deliberations and preparation of the court decision. According to Comuns, the judge himself was aware that such statements were inappropriate, which is why he adopted an ironic tone. The document emphasizes that such actions may indicate a breach of professional ethics and the laws governing judicial conduct.
Details of the complaint and participants’ response
In a statement prepared by Jaume Asens, it is claimed that the president of the Supreme Court chamber’s comments made it clear the internal discussions had reached a point where he could start drafting the verdict. Additionally, it emerged that there had been a change of rapporteur on the case—with Arrieta himself taking over from the previously assigned judge, Susana Polo. Polo, it turned out, was one of the two judges who did not support a guilty verdict, while the other five members of the panel voted in favor.
Comuns point out that such a change of rapporteur is only possible once it becomes clear that the minority opinion does not align with the majority’s stance. According to the complainants, this indicates that by the time Arrieta spoke, the outcome of the case had already been firmly decided, and the verdict was virtually predetermined. The complaint also notes that the prosecution, which organized the course under discussion, was seeking a real prison term for the attorney general, while the judge himself, in the applicants’ view, pandered to the audience’s expectations.
Legal and social consequences
Comuns emphasize that all details related to internal court deliberations and decision-making must remain strictly confidential. Any public comment, even if made in jest, can be regarded as disclosing official secrets. In this case, the party believes, the chair of the Supreme Court chamber allowed an unacceptable information leak, which could lead to disciplinary and criminal repercussions.
The complaint has already sparked widespread reaction among legal professionals and politicians. The debate now goes beyond the possible misconduct itself, raising questions about transparency in the judicial process and whether judges should publicly comment on cases still under review. Some experts warn that such incidents can undermine confidence in the judicial system and cast doubt on judges’ impartiality.
Ongoing developments and possible outcomes
At this time, it is unclear how quickly the Comuns complaint will be reviewed or what measures might be taken regarding the president of the Supreme Court chamber. If found guilty, the judge could face serious consequences, including removal from office. However, some observers believe the situation could be seen as an unfortunate joke with no real legal ramifications.
The case remains in the public spotlight. In the coming weeks, new statements from those involved and possibly further proceedings are expected. Regardless of the outcome, this incident has already sparked debate about the boundaries of acceptable judicial behavior and the need for strict adherence to the principle of secrecy in the deliberation room.
