A Madrid court's decision to let Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, travel to London for her daughter's graduation while denying her request to accompany her husband to the NATO summit in Ankara drew sharp criticism from legal experts. Substitute judge Antonio Viejo issued the ruling, which experts described as inconsistent and based on questionable assumptions about flight risk.
Information from El País, the court approved Gómez's trip to London from July 8 to 10, citing the event's family nature and judicial cooperation between Spain and the United Kingdom despite Brexit. It denied her request to travel to Ankara, reasoning that Turkey falls outside the European Union's judicial-cooperation structure and that her presence at the summit would amount to institutional courtesy, not active participation. The dispute arose amid broader restrictions imposed by investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado, including the withdrawal of Gómez's passport and a ban on leaving Spain.
Legal scholars interviewed by El País questioned the distinction. They noted that Turkey is a party to the European Convention on Extradition and has bilateral arrangements with Spain, while the United Kingdom also operates outside the EU's judicial area after Brexit. They argued that the ruling did not adequately explain why London travel was permitted but Ankara travel was not, particularly given Gómez's public profile and the security arrangements surrounding a NATO summit.
Several criminal-law professors called the court's approach irrational, arguing that the presumption of innocence should guide such decisions and that precautionary measures must be proportionate. They considered the prospect of the prime minister's wife fleeing justice implausible and said the distinction between the destinations lacked a clear legal basis. Some suggested the substitute judge may have sought a compromise rather than fully overturning earlier restrictions.
Prosecutors familiar with the case also criticized the decision, pointing to weak reasoning about international cooperation and the lack of a concrete assessment of flight risk. They noted that both Turkey and the United Kingdom have mechanisms for extradition and judicial cooperation with Spain. The ruling also followed a succession of substitute judges, raising concerns about procedural continuity.
Other judges said the practical outcome might be reasonable, but the explanation lacked sufficient detail. In their view, the distinction between a family event and an official summit was not clearly justified in legal terms, while the risk assessment lacked an individualized analysis of Gómez's circumstances and the particulars of each trip.
The travel dispute formed part of a broader, developing investigation. A Madrid Provincial Court decision on July 13, 2026, partially upheld appeals against Peinado's measures. It returned Gómez's passport and lifted the travel ban, while also ending her periodic reporting obligations. The ruling narrowed the case to allegations of influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds, removing other accusations covered in earlier accounts. Those allegations remain allegations; the ruling did not establish guilt.
On September 21, Peinado ordered the opening of oral proceedings and sent the case toward a jury trial in Madrid after more than two years of investigation. The case concerns, among other matters, activities linked to Gómez's work at the Complutense University of Madrid and the role of her assistant at La Moncloa. The public prosecutor's office and Gómez's defence sought acquittal, while the private accuser Hazte Oír reportedly sought a 13-year prison sentence. October reporting said no trial date had been fixed and that the file had not yet reached the Madrid Provincial Court, leaving the proceedings unresolved.
Earlier accounts described accusations including embezzlement and business corruption, alongside influence peddling and misappropriation of a trademark. If convicted, Gómez could face sentences of up to 24 years. The later appellate decision narrowed the allegations proceeding in the case to influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has defended Gómez and rejected the accusations; his government and the PSOE have criticized the investigation as arbitrary and unjust. No conviction has been established.
The case has become part of a wider debate in Spain about the proportionality of judicial measures in high-profile investigations and the need for clear reasoning when courts restrict travel. It also highlights the practical and legal complexities of international judicial cooperation. Jury proceedings remain unresolved, and October reporting had set no trial date, leaving the allegations for the courts to determine.
