A Madrid court permitted Begoña Gómez to attend her daughter's graduation in London but denied her travel to the NATO summit in Ankara. Legal experts sharply criticized the decision, calling the risk of flight unfounded and the reasoning inconsistent.
A Madrid court's decision to allow Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, to travel to London for her daughter's graduation but block her from accompanying her husband to the NATO summit in Ankara has sparked strong criticism from legal experts. The ruling, issued by substitute judge Antonio Viejo, has been described as inconsistent and based on questionable assumptions about flight risk.
According to El País, the court approved Gómez's trip to London from July 8 to 10, citing the family nature of the event and the established judicial cooperation between Spain and the United Kingdom, even after Brexit. However, the judge denied her request to travel to Ankara for the NATO summit, arguing that Turkey is outside the EU's judicial cooperation framework and that her presence at the summit was only for institutional courtesy, not active participation.
Legal scholars interviewed by El País questioned the logic behind the decision. They pointed out that Turkey is a signatory to the European Convention on Extradition and maintains bilateral agreements with Spain, while the UK, post-Brexit, also operates outside the EU's judicial area. Experts argued that the court's reasoning did not sufficiently justify why travel to London was permitted but Ankara was not, especially given the high-profile nature of Gómez's position and the strong police presence that would accompany her.
Several professors of criminal law described the court's approach as irrational, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence should prevail and that preventive measures must be proportionate and reasonable. They noted that the idea of the prime minister's wife fleeing justice is highly implausible, and that the court's distinction between the two destinations lacked a solid legal foundation. Some suggested that the substitute judge may have been influenced by previous decisions in the case and sought a compromise rather than fully overturning earlier restrictions.
Prosecutors familiar with the case also criticized the ruling, highlighting the weak arguments regarding international cooperation and the lack of concrete analysis of any real risk of flight. They noted that both Turkey and the UK have mechanisms for extradition and judicial collaboration with Spain, undermining the justification for treating the two trips differently. The decision was further complicated by the fact that the judge was acting as a substitute for another substitute, adding to the sense of procedural instability.
Other judges, while acknowledging the outcome as reasonable in practical terms, pointed out that the court's explanation was insufficiently detailed. They argued that the distinction between a family event and an official summit was not clearly justified in legal terms, and that the risk assessment was too abstract. The lack of individualized analysis of Gómez's situation and the specific circumstances of each trip was seen as a key weakness in the court's reasoning.
Begoña Gómez faces accusations including embezzlement, influence peddling, business corruption, and misappropriation of trademark, with potential sentences of up to 24 years if convicted. However, legal experts noted that the minimum penalties for these charges are not particularly high, and a suspended sentence would be possible in the event of a conviction, further reducing any realistic risk of flight.
This case highlights ongoing debates in Spain about the proportionality of judicial measures in high-profile investigations and the importance of clear, well-founded reasoning in court decisions. The controversy also underscores the complexities of international judicial cooperation, especially in cases involving political figures and cross-border travel. As Spain continues to navigate these legal and diplomatic challenges, the outcome of Gómez's case may set important precedents for future proceedings involving public officials and their families.
