The CGPJ is holding off on disciplinary decisions regarding Judge Peinado. Three complaints remain unresolved as the future of the ‘Begoña Gómez’ case hangs on a crucial court ruling. Peinado’s upcoming retirement adds urgency.
The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is postponing any disciplinary action against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who has 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 the latest appeals, a decision that could determine the future of the proceedings and whether any sanctions against Peinado would have practical effect before his mandatory retirement on September 27.
Judge Peinado, previously little known to the public, became a central figure after opening an investigation into Gómez’s private activities. His handling of the case has sparked controversy and led to a series of complaints, including three still pending before the CGPJ. Two of these are directly related to the Gómez case, while a third concerns alleged procedural delays in a separate matter involving Madrid’s municipal administration.
The most significant complaint comes from Félix Bolaños, Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts, who objected to being summoned as a witness by Peinado under what he described as “absolutely anomalous” circumstances. Bolaños distanced himself from the hiring of Cristina Álvarez as Gómez’s personal assistant, while Peinado criticized the minister’s responses as evasive. Tensions escalated when Peinado attempted to charge Bolaños with perjury and embezzlement, but the Supreme Court dismissed these accusations due to a lack of evidence. Despite this, Peinado proceeded with charges against Gómez, including embezzlement, influence peddling, business corruption, and misappropriation of trademark.
After Bolaños filed his complaint, the CGPJ’s disciplinary promoter, Ricardo Conde, initially recommended closing the case, arguing that the judge’s actions fell within his judicial duties. However, the council’s Permanent Commission requested further information, leaving the matter unresolved. The same commission also debated a separate complaint from Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska, who objected to Peinado’s decision to impose travel restrictions on Gómez and to suggest that her police escorts might facilitate her escape. This led to an emergency meeting, where the CGPJ president, Isabel Perelló, used her tie-breaking vote to keep the disciplinary process open, despite opposition from conservative members who argued that Peinado’s actions were not subject to disciplinary review.
Beyond the Gómez case, Peinado faces another complaint from Más Madrid and Socialist Assembly member Guillermo Hita, who accuse him of failing to extend an investigation into a senior official in Madrid’s city government within the legal timeframe. This procedural lapse forced the case’s closure. Here too, the CGPJ’s disciplinary promoter suggested 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 case or concerned his private life. However, the unresolved cases remain in limbo, with the council’s president reluctant to force another tie-breaking vote. Perelló has indicated that the CGPJ will not revisit the complaints until the Madrid Provincial Court issues its ruling on the latest appeals, expected to be deliberated on July 13. The most consequential appeal concerns the opening of the oral trial and the precautionary measures imposed on Gómez, while others address the exclusion of a professional intrusion charge and the consolidation of popular accusations.
Some within the CGPJ worry that by the time the council is ready to act, Peinado will have already retired, making any sanction largely symbolic. If the council opts for a minor penalty, enforcement would fall to the Madrid High Court of Justice, which is currently in a transitional phase, and August is a non-working month for the judiciary. Sanctions could range from a simple warning to expulsion from the judiciary, though the latter would have little practical effect so close to retirement.
This situation echoes broader tensions in Spain’s judicial and political landscape, where high-profile cases involving public officials have tested the boundaries of oversight and accountability. For example, 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 ‘Begoña Gómez’ case and the CGPJ’s response to the complaints against Peinado may set important precedents for how Spain’s judiciary handles internal dissent and public controversy.
For context, the CGPJ is Spain’s top judicial oversight body, responsible for ensuring the independence and discipline of judges. Its decisions can influence public trust in the legal system, especially in politically sensitive cases. The current impasse reflects both the complexity of the legal issues at stake and the institutional challenges posed by impending retirements and divided opinions within the council. As the Madrid court prepares its ruling, the legal and political ramifications of the ‘Begoña Gómez’ case remain closely watched across Spain.
