The decision by Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has sent a clear signal to the country’s entire judicial system. Two judges who came under scrutiny for their critical remarks about public figures have not received disciplinary actions. This move emphasizes that freedom of expression for members of the judiciary remains a priority, even when their opinions spark public controversy.
In the case of judge Eloy Velasco, attention was drawn to comments he made during an educational event. He spoke harshly about the former Minister for Equality and the Podemos party; however, his remarks were intended solely for course participants and were not aimed at a wider audience. According to Ale Espanol, these words entered the public domain without the judge’s consent. The prosecutor stressed that this was a lecture, not an official duty.
Doubt over authorship
The second case involves judge Manuel Ruiz de Lara. His name surfaced in an investigation over a social media post that mockingly referred to the spouse of the prime minister. However, the commission found no convincing evidence that he was the author. Moreover, the profile contained no reference to his judicial position, and the post soon disappeared. As a result, disciplinary rules were not violated, since the judge did not identify himself as a representative of the judiciary.
Most members of the disciplinary committee nominated by the People’s Party took the position that none of the judges committed an offense warranting punishment. They emphasized that freedom of expression outweighs any potential offense if it concerns public figures. Meanwhile, the representatives from the Socialists insisted on imposing a fine, considering the judges’ conduct to be a serious violation.
Internal disagreements
The disciplinary cases were initiated after the decision of the Standing Committee, despite the initial recommendation from the prosecutor not to launch an investigation. Ultimately, the disciplinary commission concluded that in none of the cases was any wrongdoing proven, and the judges’ statements are protected by the freedom of speech law. This decision could set a precedent for future disputes over the permissible limits of judges’ behavior in the public sphere.
In Spain, issues of judges’ disciplinary responsibility regularly spark debate. For instance, a recent controversy arose when prosecutors demanded the cancellation of nearly 80,000 euros in court costs, drawing significant attention in Madrid. You can read more about this case in the article on the court cost dispute.
Context and consequences
According to Ale Espanol, the CGPJ’s decision may affect future disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases involving judges’ public statements. In recent years, Spain has repeatedly seen situations where members of the judiciary faced criticism for their comments on social media or in public appearances. Each case sparks debate over the balance between personal opinion and professional ethics.
A similar incident was discussed in 2025, when a judge from Barcelona was investigated for an online post, but the case was also closed due to a lack of direct evidence of misconduct. Previously in Valencia, a judge was acquitted after his comments about local politicians were deemed personal opinions. These cases show that the boundaries of what is acceptable for judges in the public sphere remain a topic of discussion and can change depending on public demand and the political climate.
