Spain's government has urged the judiciary to address growing public distrust after a survey found that most Spaniards question the impartiality of court decisions in political cases. The call comes as political parties intensify their disputes over the concept of 'lawfare' and the perceived politicization of the justice system.
A study by the 40dB. institute for EL PAÍS and Cadena SER found that only 32.2% of respondents believe judicial rulings on political matters are fair and impartial. Three out of four Spaniards suspect that political parties try to influence judicial decisions and that judges are susceptible to such pressure. The findings have reignited debate over the independence of Spain's courts and the conduct of government and opposition figures.
Óscar López, Spain's Minister for Digital Change and Public Function and a leading figure in the Madrid Socialist Federation, said the judiciary should reflect on how the public views it. He stressed that trust in justice and the separation of powers are fundamental to the rule of law. Sources within the PSOE reiterated their respect for judicial independence but argued that legal strategies pursued by right-wing parties and controversial decisions by some judges have eroded public confidence.
The survey revealed varied views on political criticism of the judiciary. While 34.3% of respondents said government criticism of court decisions is never justified, the figure falls to 30.6% when the opposition is the source. Meanwhile, 32.4% believe such criticism is valid only if judges are not impartial, and nearly 20% think it is always justified, regardless of the political side. These opinions often align with respondents' voting intentions, reflecting deep political polarization around the justice system.
Within the PSOE, the prevailing view is that the Partido Popular (PP) and Vox have made legal complaints from ultra-conservative groups basic to their opposition strategy. Party officials also point to individual judges whose actions, they say, sometimes fall short of impartiality and proportionality. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has previously highlighted what he sees as inconsistent judicial standards in cases involving PSOE and PP members, citing the lack of indictments in the 'Kitchen case' despite large evidence.
PP parliamentary spokesperson Ester Muñoz dismissed the government's concerns and the 40dB. survey as 'populism.' Isabel Díaz Ayuso, president of the Community of Madrid, whose partner is under investigation, urged law students to defend judicial independence and reject the 'lawfare' narrative. Vox spokesperson José María Fúster also denied that judicial warfare exists in Spain, attributing public concern to persistent messaging from the PSOE. He argued that the real issue is the alleged takeover of institutions by the current government, specifically mentioning the Tribunal de Cuentas.
Pablo Fernández, secretary of organization and spokesperson for Podemos, maintained that his party has long warned of 'lawfare' in Spain, claiming that both Podemos and pro-independence groups have been its basic targets. He distinguished, but, between genuine judicial overreach and legitimate corruption cases involving PSOE figures, insisting that not every legal action against socialists constitutes 'lawfare.'
Antonio Maíllo, federal coordinator of Izquierda Unida, said some judges appear to act as political players. He suggested that high-profile figures like Judge Manuel Marchena should consider running for office if they want to influence policy directly.
The debate over judicial independence and political interference is not new in Spain. Leaders from both major parties have criticized the courts when facing legal challenges: Felipe González in 1997 and Mariano Rajoy during the 'Gürtel case' both questioned judicial motives. Today, but, heightened polarization and public skepticism shape the climate, as the latest survey data reflect.
These tensions echo broader concerns about political accountability and the judiciary's role, as seen in other recent cases involving public officials. Ongoing investigations into the Guardia Civil and SEPI, for example, have prompted similar debates about trust in institutions and the handling of high-profile probes, as detailed in this related report on political pressure and judicial scrutiny.
A separate legal dispute involving López brought the question of official privilege into focus in October. On 22 October, Madrid's Provincial Prosecutor's Office argued that a civil claim brought by Juan Vicente Bonilla, a former Guardia Civil UCO captain, should be heard by an ordinary Madrid court rather than the Supreme Court. ABC reported that Bonilla was seeking €350,000 from López over alleged harm to his honor. The prosecution argued that López's remarks, allegedly made in a party context, were not protected by his status as an officeholder. It said Article 56.2 of Spain's Organic Law of the Judiciary did not establish the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in this case. The question remained one of jurisdiction, not a final ruling on the merits of Bonilla's claim. A separate action against El Plural was also reported, with a different claimed amount.
Spain's justice system operates within a structure designed to ensure independence, but the persistent perception of political influence challenges public confidence. The Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ) oversees the judiciary, yet political deadlock has stalled its renewal for years. The impasse has drawn criticism from European institutions and domestic observers alike. Debates over 'lawfare' and judicial impartiality remain basic to Spain's political field, with potential implications for future reforms and the credibility of democratic institutions.
