The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) was due to meet urgently in Madrid to consider possible disciplinary measures against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. The review followed a series of decisions in Peinado’s investigation of Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spain’s prime minister, including an order opening oral proceedings and precautionary restrictions described at the time as including the withdrawal of her passport. The case drew sharp criticism from government officials and intensified scrutiny of the judicial process.
Justice Minister Félix Bolaños described the judge’s actions as “anomalous” and argued that Peinado’s resolutions were difficult to justify under Spanish law. Speaking on Cadena SER, Bolaños said that when judicial decisions stray from legal standards, the system itself is responsible for correcting them. The disciplinary review did not result in a finding against Peinado: the CGPJ concluded that his actions in the case did not meet the threshold for disciplinary action and did not violate a witness’s rights, as reported by La Región.
The Council’s Permanent Commission later rejected Bolaños’s appeal against the closure of his complaint by a vote of five to two. Bolaños accused the CGPJ of “corporatism” and said he would take the dispute to the Supreme Court, information from El Norte de Castilla. The outcome distinguished the initial review and subsequent administrative appeal from the separate criminal proceedings involving Gómez.
The investigation had advanced toward trial on allegations including influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds. The Madrid Provincial Court subsequently narrowed the case, dropping two alleged offenses and separating businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés from the jury proceedings, while retaining a distinct inquiry into the legality of public-contract awards. The proceedings also involved Gómez’s Moncloa aide, Cristina Álvarez. The allegations remain matters for the courts, not findings of guilt.
Peinado’s retirement at age 72 on 27 September 2026 added a procedural complication. The case was not progressing toward trial because its file had yet to reach the Madrid Provincial Court. Until the court formally receives it, it cannot assign the matter to a section or select the judge who would preside over a jury. Court sources cited by Vozpópuli said the necessary administrative steps could not begin before the transfer. Peinado’s departure also limited the practical effect of any later disciplinary sanction against him as an active judge.
The dispute has become a prominent flashpoint in Spanish politics, reflecting tension between the government and parts of the judiciary. Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary is responsible for judicial governance, including disciplinary oversight. Its decision on Peinado’s conduct did not determine the merits of the criminal case against Gómez. The proceedings and the Council’s review are separate processes, each with its own legal scope and outcome. The case echoes other instances in which public figures have faced intense legal and political scrutiny, including the public punishment of Victoria in the valley, which stirred debate among local authorities and residents. For more on how disciplinary measures can affect public perception and institutional trust, see this related report on recent disciplinary actions in a Spanish community.
