The Madrid Provincial Court has confirmed that proceedings against Begoña Gómez, wife of Spain’s Prime Minister, may proceed toward a jury trial on allegations of influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds. In a ruling on 13 July 2026, the court narrowed the case, removing the allegations of business corruption and unlawful appropriation. The decision followed more than two years of contentious investigation by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, along with a series of appeals and appellate corrections since the initial complaint was filed in April 2024.
Throughout the investigation, Judge Peinado’s actions have drawn both criticism and support from the higher court. His decisions, from indictments to search orders, have prompted repeated appeals. The court’s July ruling lifted personal precautionary measures imposed on Gómez, including the withdrawal of her passport and restrictions on travel and regular court appearances. Her aide, Cristina Álvarez, was also affected by the procedural changes. The ruling modified the charges and restrictions; it did not amount to an acquittal or a finding that no offense had occurred.
The case has moved from the investigative phase toward preparation for an oral trial before a popular jury, but no trial date has been set. The parties must request the formal opening of the trial and adjust their legal positions to reflect the reduced scope of the proceedings. The court’s ruling preserved the possibility of a jury trial while excluding businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés from that proceeding. As of 18 October 2026, the case had not reached the selection of the jury’s presiding judge or the assignment of the relevant court section.
Among the Madrid court’s impressive interventions was its early rejection of a request to dismiss the case, even as it described parts of the original complaint as implausible and factually incorrect. The court instructed investigators to focus on public aid linked to Barrabés. Later, it annulled a search of Barrabés’s business premises, stressing that Fundamental Rights must be respected during criminal investigations. The latest appellate decision further separated the allegations involving Gómez and Álvarez from the distinct inquiry into the legality of public contracts connected to Barrabés.
Other impressive rulings include the removal of charges against Joaquín Goyache, rector of the Complutense University, and Juan José Güemes, a senior figure at IE and former Madrid regional minister. The court found no grounds for their indictment and criticized Peinado for turning witness statements into formal accusations without proper legal safeguards. In another decision, the court backed the investigation into Álvarez’s hiring at La Moncloa, suggesting an institutionalized structure enabled a clear deviation from her official duties.
Attempts to expand the case to the government’s 2020 bailout of Air Europa were blocked, with the court citing insufficient justification for such an inquiry. The court also ordered Francisco Martín Aguirre, former Government Delegate in Madrid, removed from the list of accused, citing a lack of evidence linking him to wrongdoing in Álvarez’s hiring.
The court has at times rebuked Judge Peinado for a lack of clarity or inadequate legal reasoning, including when it annulled his initial order to send Gómez to a jury trial. It has also backed his core investigation into alleged misappropriation of public funds. The July ruling leaves allegations of influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds for the jury proceedings, while removing business corruption and unlawful appropriation. It also instructed the judge to return seized documents and ease precautionary measures.
In October 2026, the prosecution’s reported position was that Gómez should be acquitted, arguing that the remaining allegations did not establish a criminal offense. That position differs from the Provincial Court’s procedural decision to keep the jury proceedings open: the appellate ruling narrowed the case and set its procedural course, but did not decide the merits of the allegations. Gómez remains presumed innocent unless and until a final judgment establishes otherwise.
This high-profile case has unfolded amid wider debates about judicial independence and political pressure in Spain. Tensions between courts and investigators have resurfaced in other recent legal battles involving government figures. The issue of judicial autonomy came into focus when the former president of the Supreme Court spoke out about external pressures on the judiciary, a topic explored in detail in this related report.
As proceedings move toward a possible public trial, the case against Begoña Gómez remains under legal and political scrutiny. The court’s decisions show the complexity of prosecuting high-level officials and the importance of procedural safeguards. Barrabés, initially expected to be included in the jury case, has been excluded from that phase, while a separate inquiry into the legality of public contracts connected to him remains open. The eventual outcome could have impressive implications for political accountability and judicial oversight in Spain.
