Spain’s justice system is facing unprecedented scrutiny as public confidence falls and controversial court decisions dominate headlines. Recent high-profile cases, including the investigation into Begoña Gómez, wife of the Prime Minister, have reignited debate over judicial oversight and judges’ independence. In the latest Eurobarometer, 54% of Spaniards rate judicial independence as poor, far above the EU average of 34%, placing Spain among the countries with the lowest trust in their courts.
The case of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has become emblematic of the current crisis. In 2024, Peinado rejected a request to confiscate Gómez’s passport, citing her public profile and security arrangements. Less than two years later, he reversed course, arguing that security agents could potentially aid her escape. Higher courts have repeatedly overturned his decisions. The Provincial Court of Madrid and the Supreme Court criticized the lack of justification and procedural errors. These reversals have fueled concerns about inconsistent judicial reasoning and the adequacy of internal controls.
Disciplinary mechanisms within the judiciary are also under fire. The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has been criticized for acting slowly and imposing ineffective sanctions on judges. The disciplinary commission recently declined to sanction Judge Manuel Ruiz de Lara for derogatory comments about the Prime Minister’s wife on social media, prompting dissent among progressive council members. Critics argue that the system is plagued by corporatism, with disciplinary bodies more inclined to protect judges than uphold public accountability. Even when sanctions are imposed, they are often minimal or overturned on appeal, as in the case of Judge Juan de Dios Anguita, whose 12-year suspension was annulled by the Supreme Court because of procedural delays.
Legal experts point to a pattern of arbitrary or poorly reasoned decisions, with higher courts frequently stepping in to correct lower-court rulings. Some argue that this shows the system’s checks and balances; others see evidence of deeper dysfunction. Because intentional wrongdoing, or prevarication, is difficult to prove, criminal convictions of judges remain rare. Impressive exceptions include the conviction of Judge Gómez de Liaño and the controversial removal of Judge Baltasar Garzón, cases that highlight the complexity and length of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against magistrates.
Leaks from ongoing investigations and the uneven pace of judicial processes further erode public trust. The conviction of former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz for leaking information, despite denials from those involved, has been cited as an example of perceived political bias. Meanwhile, some cases move swiftly while others drag on for years, often because of disparities in court workloads rather than overt political interference. Parliamentary immunity, or aforamiento, adds another layer of complexity: critics argue that it distorts the administration of justice and delays the resolution of sensitive cases.
Institutional tensions over judicial authority also reach beyond criminal investigations. On 21 October 2026, Spain’s Constitutional Court rejected Ombudsman Ángel Gabilondo’s appeal over a provisional measure affecting the electoral registration of some people who obtained Spanish nationality under the Democratic Memory Law, commonly associated with the “grandchildren’s law.” The court considered the appeal premature while proceedings before the Supreme Court remained open. The measure concerns voting from abroad through the CERA register, not the loss of Spanish citizenship; people affected who reside in Spain can still vote there. Reports put the number potentially affected at roughly 160,000 to 163,020.
The dispute followed Supreme Court orders giving Justice Minister Félix Bolaños and Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares five days to provide a nominal list of affected voters to the court and two electoral bodies, the Basic Electoral Board and the Electoral Census Office. The orders threatened coercive fines of €1,000 for each minister, potentially repeatable, and referred to possible criminal responsibility for non-compliance. Authorities had to distinguish people covered by the law information from the documentary basis on which they acquired nationality. Bolaños said the ministries would provide the list within the deadline and that officials had been doing “everything humanly possible to comply with the requirements.” The Constitutional Court’s 10-2 procedural decision did not resolve the voting dispute or lift the provisional measure. Judges Juan Carlos Campo and Ramón Sáez dissented on whether the appeal should be heard. The episode shows how interim judicial decisions can have immediate electoral consequences while the underlying case remains pending.
Spain’s justice system has around 5,800 judges. In its most recent annual report, the CGPJ’s disciplinary commission recorded just 15 sanctions, mostly minor fines or short suspensions, underscoring the limited reach of internal accountability. Debates over judicial independence and political influence continue to shape public perception and legislative agendas, alongside questions about the effectiveness of disciplinary controls. The need for credible, transparent oversight remains at the forefront of national discussion.
Spain’s judiciary is governed by the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, which sets out disciplinary procedures and guarantees of independence. The CGPJ, responsible for oversight, has faced criticism over its composition and perceived politicization. Judicial independence is an issue beyond Spain, but the country’s high level of public distrust, as measured by EU surveys, signals a pressing need for reform. The debate is further complicated by the intersection of judicial and political spheres, with accusations of lawfare and politicization coming from both sides of the aisle. These tensions are likely to persist while high-profile cases and controversial rulings remain in the spotlight.
