Public confidence in Spain’s judiciary is at risk as political disputes spill into the courts. Recent surveys show most Spaniards believe justice is influenced by politics. Senior judges and legal experts warn of serious consequences.
Spain’s judiciary is facing a crisis of confidence as political battles increasingly play out in courtrooms rather than parliament. Recent weeks have seen high-profile cases involving the family of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, a controversial amnesty law, and sharp divisions among judges themselves. These developments have overshadowed major legislative reforms and fueled a perception that the justice system is no longer impartial.
Two recent surveys—one by Ipsos for La Vanguardia and another by 40dB. for EL PAÍS and SER—found that more than 60% of Spaniards believe the courts are influenced by political interests. This widespread skepticism has alarmed senior figures in the judiciary, including Supreme Court magistrate Manuel Marchena, who described the situation as a tragedy for the country’s democratic institutions.
The term “lawfare” has become central to Spain’s political vocabulary. The government and left-wing parties use it to accuse certain judges of targeting the Sánchez administration for political reasons. Meanwhile, opposition parties argue that such claims are a distraction from corruption investigations. The debate has intensified as cases involving the Prime Minister’s family and the application of the EU-backed amnesty law dominate headlines, leaving other significant policy changes largely unnoticed.
Legal scholars and judges are divided on the extent of politicization. Some, like Gemma Ubasart, acknowledge that most judges act with integrity but point to a minority whose actions appear politically motivated. Others, such as José Juan Toharia, reject the idea of a broad judicial conspiracy, arguing that the real issue is the judicialization of politics—where politicians turn to the courts to resolve disputes they cannot settle themselves. This, he says, ultimately damages the credibility of the justice system.
Experts also highlight the role of media saturation and the repetitive focus on a handful of high-profile cases in shaping public opinion. Borja Mapelli, a criminal law professor, notes that few judges have actually been convicted of misconduct, and that the judiciary is subject to more oversight than other branches of law enforcement. Still, ideological divisions within the courts are evident, particularly in the Supreme Court, where appointments are heavily influenced by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ)—an institution widely seen as politicized.
Vicente Guilarte, who served on the CGPJ for a decade, argues that the perception of political interference stems largely from the top of the judicial hierarchy. The process for selecting Supreme Court judges, he says, is shaped by political interests, a view echoed by other legal professionals. There is also criticism of the outdated system for recruiting judges and prosecutors, which many believe fails to prioritize critical thinking and modern legal skills.
Ideological leanings within the judiciary are reflected in the membership of professional associations. The conservative Asociación Profesional de la Magistratura (APM) remains the largest, while the progressive Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia is much smaller. However, the largest group is now unaffiliated judges, making up 42% of the total. Some experts argue that a certain conservatism is inherent to the judicial role, as judges are tasked with upholding the law rather than driving change.
Another factor fueling controversy is the use of “acción popular”—a legal mechanism allowing groups to initiate criminal proceedings. While intended as a tool for public oversight, it is often used by ultra-conservative organizations and political parties to pursue cases against rivals. Proposals to restrict this practice have sparked debate, especially as they could affect ongoing cases involving the Prime Minister’s family. Some suggest giving prosecutors more power to filter such complaints, while others point out that judges already have tools to dismiss unfounded cases.
The erosion of trust in the judiciary is seen as a direct threat to Spain’s democratic foundations. Ubasart warns that undermining faith in the courts strikes at the core of the rule of law. Mapelli links the trend to a broader crisis affecting democratic institutions across Europe, where the judiciary is often the last line of defense against political overreach. The situation in Spain echoes concerns raised in other recent cases, such as the ban on public office for David Sánchez, the Prime Minister’s brother, which the government described as politically motivated and plans to appeal, as reported in this related coverage.
For context, Spain’s judicial system is structured to ensure independence, but the appointment of senior judges remains a contentious issue. The CGPJ, responsible for these appointments, has faced years of political deadlock, leading to calls for reform. The debate over lawfare and judicial activism is not unique to Spain; similar concerns have emerged in countries like France and Italy. Ultimately, the current climate of distrust highlights the need for transparent reforms and renewed efforts to safeguard the neutrality of the courts.
