Spain faces a surge in public distrust toward its justice system. Experts highlight controversial rulings, slow disciplinary action, and a growing sense of judicial corporatism. The debate intensifies as high-profile cases and political accusations collide.
Spain’s justice system is facing unprecedented scrutiny as public confidence plummets 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 the effectiveness of judicial oversight and the independence of judges. According to 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. Yet, less than two years later, he reversed course, arguing that security agents could potentially aid her escape. His decisions have been repeatedly overturned by higher courts, with the Provincial Court of Madrid and the Supreme Court criticizing his 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 slow and often ineffective sanctions against judges. For example, the disciplinary commission recently declined to sanction Judge Manuel Ruiz de Lara for derogatory comments about the Prime Minister’s wife on social media, sparking dissent among progressive council members. Critics argue that the system is plagued by corporatism, with disciplinary bodies more inclined to protect judges than to uphold public accountability. Even when sanctions are imposed, they are often minimal or overturned on appeal, as seen in the case of Judge Juan de Dios Anguita, whose 12-year suspension was annulled by the Supreme Court due to 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. While some argue that this demonstrates the system’s checks and balances, others see it as evidence of deeper dysfunction. The challenge of proving intentional wrongdoing, or prevarication, means that criminal convictions of judges remain rare. Notable exceptions, such as the conviction of Judge Gómez de Liaño and the controversial removal of Judge Baltasar Garzón, 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 due to disparities in court workloads rather than overt political interference. The issue of parliamentary immunity, or aforamiento, adds another layer of complexity, with critics arguing that it distorts the administration of justice and delays resolution of sensitive cases.
Spain’s justice system operates with around 5,800 judges. In the most recent annual report, the CGPJ’s disciplinary commission issued just 15 sanctions, mostly minor fines or short suspensions, underscoring the limited reach of internal accountability. The ongoing debate over judicial independence, political influence, and the effectiveness of disciplinary controls continues to shape public perception and legislative agendas. As Spain grapples with these challenges, the need for credible, transparent oversight remains at the forefront of national discussion.
For context, 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 for its composition and perceived politicization. The issue of judicial independence is not unique to 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 as long as high-profile cases and controversial rulings remain in the spotlight.
