The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is delaying disciplinary decisions concerning Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who sent Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, to trial in a case that has drawn national attention. The council is waiting for the Madrid Provincial Court to rule on appeals that could affect the proceedings. Timing has taken on added significance: Peinado’s mandatory retirement was set for September 27, and he has since left judicial service.
Peinado became a central figure after opening an investigation into Gómez’s private activities. His handling of the case has prompted a series of complaints, including three still pending before the CGPJ. Two concern the Gómez investigation; the third alleges procedural delays in a separate matter involving Madrid’s municipal administration. These disciplinary proceedings are separate from the criminal case and from appeals challenging decisions in that case.
The most prominent complaint came from Félix Bolaños, Spain’s Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts, who objected to being summoned as a witness by Peinado under what he called “absolutely anomalous” circumstances. Peinado questioned Bolaños about the hiring of Cristina Álvarez, Gómez’s adviser at La Moncloa. Bolaños disputed the circumstances of the summons and how his testimony was handled; Peinado criticized the minister’s responses as evasive. Tensions escalated when Peinado sought to charge Bolaños with perjury and embezzlement, but the Supreme Court dismissed the accusations for lack of evidence. Peinado nevertheless proceeded against Gómez on allegations that included embezzlement and influence peddling, as well as business corruption and misappropriation of a trademark.
After Bolaños filed his complaint, the CGPJ’s disciplinary promoter, Ricardo Conde, initially recommended closing it, arguing that Peinado had acted within his judicial duties. The council’s Permanent Commission requested further information, leaving the matter unresolved. A separate complaint from Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska concerned Peinado’s decision to impose travel restrictions on Gómez and his suggestion that her police escorts might help her escape. That dispute led to an emergency meeting, where CGPJ president Isabel Perelló used her tie-breaking vote to keep the disciplinary process open. Conservative members opposed the decision, arguing that Peinado’s actions were not subject to disciplinary review.
The council’s disciplinary review does not determine whether procedural rulings in the criminal case should be annulled or reversed. In a separate assessment of Bolaños’s complaint, the CGPJ concluded that Peinado’s conduct did not amount to disciplinary misconduct or violate the witness’s rights. The council’s position was that the judge had acted in the exercise of his judicial functions; the appellate court’s review follows a different legal track.
Bolaños became involved when Peinado questioned him as a witness about Álvarez’s appointment as Gómez’s adviser. He later pursued several complaints against the judge, including a further appeal alleging possible disclosure of secrets. The CGPJ Permanent Commission rejected one appeal by five votes to two. Bolaños accused the council of “corporatism” and said he would take the dispute to the Supreme Court. Peinado’s retirement limits the practical effect of any administrative sanction, although the disciplinary process could still produce an institutional finding.
Beyond the Gómez case, Peinado faces a complaint from Más Madrid and Socialist Assembly member Guillermo Hita. They accuse him of failing to extend an investigation into a senior Madrid city government official within the legal timeframe, a procedural lapse that led to the case’s closure. Here, too, the disciplinary promoter recommended archiving the complaint, but the Permanent Commission withheld a decision pending additional information.
Earlier this year, the CGPJ unanimously dismissed four other complaints against Peinado, which were either unrelated to the Gómez investigation or concerned his private life. The remaining matters are still unresolved, with Perelló reluctant to force another tie-breaking vote. The latest appeals were expected to be deliberated on July 13. The most consequential concerns the order opening oral proceedings and the precautionary measures imposed on Gómez; others challenge the exclusion of a professional intrusion charge and the consolidation of popular accusations.
Further procedural developments have left the trial timetable unsettled. On September 8, 2026, a preliminary hearing took place without Cristina Álvarez, Gómez’s Moncloa adviser and a co-defendant, despite her stated interest in attending. Her lawyer, José María de Pablo, asked the Madrid court to annul the hearing and return the proceedings to the stage immediately before it was scheduled. The request challenges a procedural step in the criminal case and is separate from the complaints before the CGPJ.
Peinado opened oral proceedings on September 21, 2026, over allegations of influence peddling and embezzlement, sending the case toward a trial before a popular jury. Those are the allegations identified in that procedural order, not a summary of every allegation raised during the wider investigation. Reports in October said the file had still not reached the Madrid Provincial Court and that no judge had been selected to preside over the jury trial, leaving the appeals capable of affecting the case before trial arrangements are finalized.
Some within the CGPJ worry that Peinado would have retired by the time the council was ready to act, making any sanction largely symbolic. If the council imposed a minor penalty, enforcement would fall to the Madrid High Court of Justice, which was in a transitional phase. August is a non-working month for the judiciary. Sanctions can range from a warning to expulsion from the judiciary, although Peinado’s retirement means a disciplinary penalty would no longer have the same practical effect on his judicial career.
The situation reflects broader tensions in Spain’s judicial and political field, where high-profile cases involving public officials have tested the boundaries of oversight and accountability. Recent scrutiny of the Guardia Civil and SEPI investigations has highlighted similar challenges, as detailed in this analysis of political pressure on judicial probes. The outcome of the Gómez case and the CGPJ’s response to complaints against Peinado may shape how Spain’s judiciary handles internal oversight and public controversy.
The CGPJ is Spain’s top judicial oversight body, responsible for safeguarding judicial independence and overseeing judges’ discipline. Its decisions can influence public trust in the legal system, particularly in politically sensitive cases. The current impasse reflects the separate legal tracks, unresolved complaints and the effect of Peinado’s retirement. As the Madrid court considers the appeals, the legal and political ramifications of the Gómez case remain closely watched across Spain.
