Judges Demand Decisive Action After Revelation of Pressure Scheme on the Judiciary. Three leading associations of Spanish judges are demanding a tougher response from the Judicial Council to attempts at interference. The scandal is linked to an investigation into possible manipulation in high-profile cases. The issue of judicial independence is once again in the spotlight.
A new conflict is flaring up in Spain over the independence of the judicial system. Three of the largest judges' associations — Asociación Profesional de la Magistratura (APM), Asociación Judicial Francisco de Vitoria (AJFV), and Foro Judicial Independiente (FJI) — have publicly voiced their dissatisfaction with the position of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) following information about possible attempts to interfere with the work of the courts. In their view, the Council’s response was too soft against the backdrop of an investigation involving both former and current politicians.
The catalyst for the sharp criticism were reports of an alleged scheme involving, according to the investigation, the former PSOE organization secretary Santos Cerdán and former socialist Leire Díez. The inquiry, led by the National High Court judge Santiago Pedraz, is examining whether these individuals tried to discredit certain judges and obstruct cases that could affect the interests of the party or the government. The judges’ associations believe this is not a private dispute, but an attempt at systematic pressure on the entire judicial system.
Particular attention was drawn to reports of secret investigations concerning Judge Beatriz Biedma, who was handling a case against the brother of Prime Minister David Sánchez. According to the associations, this may involve surveillance of the judge and her associates in order to exert pressure and undermine confidence in her rulings. Judicial organizations emphasize that such actions threaten not only individual judges but also the principle of judicial independence as a whole.
In a joint statement, the associations reiterated the importance of the presumption of innocence for all those involved in the case, but emphasized that the information already available is a cause for serious concern. They believe that possible attempts to discredit the judges go beyond ordinary political criticism and may be part of an orchestrated campaign against judicial independence.
The Council of Judges limited itself to a formal statement the day before, emphasizing the need to respect the independence of the judiciary. However, representatives of APM, AJFV, and FJI consider this response insufficient and expect more decisive action from the Council. According to them, the lack of a clear position may undermine public confidence in the justice system and create a dangerous precedent for future cases.
The associations also expressed disappointment at the lack of response from the Attorney General's Office, which, in their view, should defend the independence of judges. They stressed that any attempts to pressure judges are a threat not only to individual cases, but to the entire system of separation of powers in Spain.
The organizations stated their willingness to monitor the progress of the investigation and, if necessary, to take action at both the national and European levels. They emphasize that the calm and independence of judges are key conditions for the normal functioning of the judicial system.
In the context of this scandal, it is worth recalling that court proceedings related to pressure on judges and interference in high-profile cases are not uncommon in Spain. For example, previously in Madrid, there was a lawsuit against media outlets over publications about Julio Iglesias, which also raised questions about the limits of permissible influence on the reputation and decisions of judges (read more about that conflict).
For reference: the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ) is the highest governing body of Spain’s judicial system, responsible for appointing, promoting, and disciplining judges. The country has several professional associations of judges, reflecting different views on the role and independence of the judiciary. Issues of pressure on courts and political influence regularly become the subject of public and parliamentary debate, especially during periods of high-profile investigations and trials.
