The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) is divided over whether to open disciplinary proceedings against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who is overseeing the high-profile case involving Begoña Gómez. The council received five formal complaints about Peinado's conduct, but members have yet to agree on how to proceed.
The most contentious complaint focused on a court order concerning Gómez's passport and her ability to leave Spain. The order prompted protests from the Ministry of the Interior and the Sindicato Unificado de Policía (SUP), Spain's largest police union. Félix Bolaños, Spain's Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Cortes, also filed a separate complaint over Peinado's handling of his testimony as a witness at La Moncloa.
Other complaints came from deputies from Más Madrid and the PSOE, a private citizen, and an adviser to Gómez. Ricardo Conde, the CGPJ's disciplinary action promoter, recommended dismissing the complaints. In Bolaños's case, the council's Permanent Commission ultimately granted Peinado judicial protection, known as amparo, instead of opening disciplinary proceedings. The CGPJ found that the judge's conduct did not meet the threshold for disciplinary action and did not violate the witness's rights.
The decision did not end the dispute. Bolaños challenged the council's handling of his complaint, and the Permanent Commission rejected a further appeal by five votes to two. He accused the council of “corporativismo” and said he would take the matter to Spain's Supreme Court. That challenge follows a separate procedural path from the underlying investigation and the other complaints against Peinado.
The dispute stems from Peinado's investigation involving Begoña Gómez, the wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The judge imposed restrictions that included withdrawing her passport and barring her from leaving Spanish territory. Those measures drew political attention when Gómez sought permission to attend an international NATO summit in Ankara. Peinado had previously allowed her passport to be returned so she could travel to London for her daughter's graduation. Separately, the Madrid Provincial Court revoked two offenses included in an earlier version of the case, while proceedings continued in a modified form.
The debate comes as Spain's judicial system faces close scrutiny and public confidence in legal institutions is tested by high-profile cases. The situation echoes recent tensions in other sectors, including Málaga's healthcare system, where a surge in melanoma cases prompted a new prevention campaign, as reported in a recent article on local health initiatives. Both cases show the challenges Spanish institutions face in maintaining public trust amid controversy and criticism.
The CGPJ's decision on Bolaños's complaint distinguishes filing a complaint from opening a disciplinary case. In this instance, the council granted Peinado amparo and found no disciplinary violation. That finding addresses the disciplinary status of the judge's conduct, but does not resolve the political criticism surrounding the investigation or the separate appeal Bolaños says he will pursue.
Spain's judicial oversight body, the CGPJ, is responsible for safeguarding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Its handling of complaints against judges draws close attention, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving government officials. The dispute has become part of wider arguments over judicial accountability and independence, while Peinado's decisions in the Gómez investigation remain under scrutiny through the case's proceedings and appeals.
