Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has reaffirmed his decision to confiscate the passport of Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, and bar her from leaving Spain. The restrictions also require Gómez to appear before the court every 15 days. They have drawn scrutiny because she is a high-profile defendant who receives state security protection.
In a written response to the Provincial Court of Madrid, Peinado addressed the defense’s argument that Gómez is accompanied by police officers responsible for the prime minister’s security. He invoked Bettino Craxi, Italy’s former prime minister, who left Italy for Tunisia while facing proceedings linked to the Tangentopoli corruption scandal and settled in Hammamet. The example has featured in public discussion of flight risk, though its relevance to Gómez’s circumstances remains contested. Peinado’s position, as described in the case, is that the presence of security personnel does not by itself eliminate the possibility of flight. He wrote that “it would not be the first time a president of a European Union member state has escaped” under similar circumstances.
The judge also addressed earlier remarks about whether police escorts could assist an escape. The comments prompted criticism from police unions and concern within the National Police. Peinado said he did not intend to insult or undermine the force. He argued that individual officers can fail in their duties and pointed to the existence of the police Internal Affairs Unit.
Gómez’s legal team, led by former Socialist minister Antonio Camacho, has challenged the restrictions and Peinado’s handling of the case. The judge’s latest statement, signed on June 30 before his vacation, was submitted as part of the court’s review. Separately, the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), responsible for judicial governance and disciplinary oversight, considered complaints concerning Peinado’s conduct. Its Permanent Commission rejected a challenge by five votes to two, concluding that the investigator’s actions did not reach disciplinary significance or violate a witness’s rights. That disciplinary review is distinct from court proceedings over the passport restrictions.
The case has also advanced toward trial. Peinado ordered the opening of oral-trial proceedings over allegations of influence peddling and embezzlement, then referred the matter to the Madrid Provincial Court. The allegations are not findings of guilt. Gómez’s defense continues to contest the measures and the judge’s handling of the proceedings.
Other high-profile investigations involving Spanish officials and their associates have raised similar questions. Scrutiny of public figures’ conduct and law enforcement’s role has been a recurring theme, including when Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stood by the director of the Guardia Civil during an internal probe, as detailed in coverage of the Guardia Civil leadership investigation.
Spanish courts may impose precautionary measures, including passport withdrawal and travel restrictions, during criminal proceedings. The defense can challenge such measures through the courts, while complaints about a judge’s conduct may be considered separately by the CGPJ. In Gómez’s case, the passport restriction and periodic court appearances have accompanied proceedings moving toward trial, while judicial and disciplinary scrutiny follow separate tracks.
