Concerns over the independence of Spain’s judiciary have intensified after a recent survey found that more than 65% of respondents believe lawfare, meaning politically motivated legal actions, exists in the country. The findings, attributed to Instituto 40dB in a survey commissioned for EL PAÍS and Cadena SER, also put trust in the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ) at 4.6 out of 10. Some 58% of respondents said it does little to oversee or discipline judges who perform poorly. These are measures of public perception, not judicial findings that lawfare exists. They have nevertheless sharpened debate among judges and legal associations over political influence on the justice system.
Conservative judges firmly reject the idea that lawfare is present in Spain, insisting judicial decisions are made independently and strictly information from the law. María Rubio, of the Asociación Judicial Francisco de Vitoria (AJFV), has stressed that judges are impartial and not swayed by political events. She argues that courts act on legal grounds whether or not an accused person is a politician. Rubio has also acknowledged that efforts in recent years to undermine the judiciary’s image have contributed to public distrust.
Progressive voices within the judiciary say some court decisions are difficult to understand and may reinforce perceptions of lawfare. Edmundo Rodríguez, spokesperson for Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia (JJpD), pointed to controversial rulings, including the November 2025 Supreme Court conviction of former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz for revealing confidential information connected to a tax case involving Alberto González Amador, the partner of Madrid regional president Isabel Díaz Ayuso. García Ortiz, who had served as attorney general since 2022, received a two-year ban from holding that office and resigned several days later. Two Supreme Court judges dissented, and García Ortiz subsequently sought constitutional review. Rodríguez has argued that public perceptions of lawfare are fueled by the political instrumentalization of courts and a lack of rigor in some judicial actions.
The García Ortiz case has become a prominent reference point in a wider dispute involving the judiciary and prosecution service, with the government led by Pedro Sánchez and Madrid’s conservative regional administration also drawn in. Critics of the conviction see it as evidence that senior officials can be held accountable. Government-aligned voices have cited it as an example of what they describe as judicial politicization. The competing interpretations reflect the political charge surrounding the case, but the conviction and the public-opinion survey address different questions.
The debate also concerns the CGPJ, Spain’s judicial governing body, which handles judicial appointments and discipline alongside its administrative duties. The survey put its public trust rating at 4.6 out of 10, while 58% of respondents said it does little to oversee or discipline underperforming judges. Progressive members of the CGPJ have pointed to delays in high-profile disciplinary cases, including matters involving Judge Juan Carlos Peinado and his investigation into Begoña Gómez, the wife of the prime minister. Some cases have been closed, while others remain unresolved, among them complaints from government ministers.
Conservative members of the CGPJ deny that politically motivated prosecutions are taking place. They attribute negative public perceptions to political attacks on the judiciary and warn that such criticism can undermine confidence in the justice system. Conservatives also argue that the council’s limited budgetary autonomy constrains its ability to act decisively. They point to government refusals to fund additional judicial resources as an example.
On disciplinary matters, conservative sources maintain that each case is reviewed and sanctions are imposed when warranted, regardless of external pressure. They say the CGPJ remains open to criticism, while insisting technical criteria guide its decisions. The council’s ongoing institutional work includes long-term staffing: its plenary approved a judicial human-resources plan for 2026 to 2035 on 16 December 2025, addressing capacity and organization across the judicial career.
The consequences of García Ortiz’s conviction have also been examined separately from the criminal judgment. A subsequent Supreme Court ruling limited the disqualification to the specific office of attorney general and rejected treating it as automatic expulsion from the prosecutorial career. The distinction between losing a particular public office and losing career status has kept questions of proportionality and professional consequences in the wider debate over judicial accountability.
The lawfare debate has become a flashpoint in Spain’s political discussion, amid criticism that the CGPJ operated with an expired mandate for several years because of political deadlock. The controversy reflects wider concerns about the separation of powers and confidence in democratic institutions. Spain’s judiciary is structured to protect judicial independence: judges enter through competitive examinations and are protected from arbitrary dismissal. Yet political negotiation over senior appointments, including those to the CGPJ and the Constitutional Court, can encourage perceptions of bias. In a climate shaped by high-profile cases and persistent concerns about political interference, public confidence depends on transparency and accountability, alongside clear boundaries between judicial and political actors in Spain’s legal system.
