The General Council of the Judiciary is set to decide on opening a disciplinary case against Judge Peinado. His statements about police possibly aiding Begoña Gómez's escape have triggered internal debate. The Council's response could set a precedent.
The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is preparing to address a highly sensitive case involving Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, after he suggested in a court order that police officers assigned to protect Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spain’s Prime Minister, might facilitate her escape from the country. This assertion, included in the official document announcing the opening of oral proceedings against Gómez, has prompted the CGPJ’s president, Isabel Perelló, to propose disciplinary measures against the magistrate.
Perelló has formally asked the CGPJ’s standing committee, the Council’s main executive body, to instruct the disciplinary authority to initiate proceedings against Judge Peinado. The proposal specifically references statements made in the June 20, 2026 order, where Peinado raised the possibility that members of the State Security Forces could assist an individual under investigation in fleeing Spain. The same order imposed strict precautionary measures on Gómez, including the withdrawal of her passport, a ban on leaving the country, and a requirement to appear in court every two weeks.
According to sources within the CGPJ, an online meeting was initially scheduled for Sunday at 10:00 to discuss the matter. However, the session was postponed to Monday morning for an in-person discussion. The delay has not been universally accepted; some Council members have argued that the situation demands an immediate response. A spokesperson clarified that the postponement to Monday is not yet final, reflecting the urgency and division within the Council over how to proceed.
The disciplinary proposal cites Article 608.3 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which allows for the opening of a case if a judge’s conduct may constitute a disciplinary offense. In this instance, the focus is on whether Peinado’s remarks about the potential involvement of police in a suspect’s escape amount to a serious breach under Article 418.5 of the same law. This article addresses abuses of authority or serious disrespect toward colleagues, superiors, or any participant in judicial proceedings, including prosecutors, lawyers, court clerks, and others.
As reported by EL PAÍS, the Council’s decision could have significant implications for the boundaries of judicial expression and the relationship between the judiciary and law enforcement. The case also highlights the heightened scrutiny surrounding high-profile investigations involving political figures and their families in Spain. The CGPJ, as the governing body of the judiciary, is responsible for ensuring both judicial independence and accountability. Disciplinary proceedings against judges are rare and typically reserved for cases where statements or actions are seen as undermining the integrity of the judicial process or the reputation of other public institutions.
For context, the CGPJ is the constitutional body overseeing Spain’s judiciary, with powers to discipline judges and magistrates. Article 418.5 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary is designed to maintain respect and proper conduct within the legal system. The current situation underscores ongoing tensions between judicial independence and the need for oversight, especially in cases with political sensitivity. The outcome of this debate may influence future standards for judicial commentary in Spain.
