The Provincial Court of Madrid is preparing to rule on whether Begoña Gómez, the prime minister’s spouse, should face a jury trial in a case involving allegations of corruption and influence peddling. The decision, expected after the full judicial panel reviews the matter, could shape one of Spain’s most closely watched legal proceedings in recent years. The allegations are not findings of guilt; responsibility will be determined through the judicial process.
Five magistrates, led by presiding judge Rosario Martínez Meilán, will meet in an expanded session, with Enrique Jesús Bergés serving as rapporteur, to examine Judge Juan Carlos Peinado’s ruling. Peinado ordered Gómez and her adviser, Cristina Álvarez, to stand trial before a popular jury, along with businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés. The panel will also consider appeals concerning the dismissal of professional misconduct charges and a dispute over the structure of the joint popular prosecution led by Hazte Oír.
Peinado issued the order sending the case to trial on 21 September 2026, shortly before his mandatory retirement on 27 September, when he reached the statutory age of 72. The proposed format calls for nine citizen jurors, with two substitutes available, and a professional judge to preside over proceedings and issue any sentence required by the verdict. No trial date has been set. The court’s decision will take time: the judges must issue a detailed, reasoned order, and deliberations could extend beyond a single day given the complexity and significance of the issues.
Launched in April 2024, the investigation lasted more than two years and focuses on Gómez’s role as co-director of a university chair at the Complutense University of Madrid, along with the development and sponsorship of related software. It also examines allegations that she influenced public contracts in favor of Barrabés. Reporting has linked the software project to technology company Minsait. Álvarez’s alleged role in handling the platform is also under scrutiny. These matters remain allegations for the court to assess.
The Provincial Court, which has previously both upheld and overturned Judge Peinado’s decisions, will decide whether a jury should hear the charges, including influence peddling and business corruption, as well as embezzlement and misappropriation. The court had earlier revoked Peinado’s attempt to investigate embezzlement in a separate proceeding and annulled his initial move to send the case to a jury for lack of sufficient justification. Peinado responded with a new, more detailed order in April, reaffirming his position on a jury trial and dismissing the professional misconduct charge against Gómez.
Both the prosecution and defense appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the case against Gómez rested on conjecture. Her legal team suggested the proceedings were motivated by her status as the prime minister’s spouse. Álvarez’s defense maintains that she merely performed her duties, while Barrabés says there is no evidence linking him to the alleged crimes. The prosecution has consistently called for the case to be dropped, arguing that none of the accused committed a crime and challenging the need for a jury trial.
A separate challenge concerns the preliminary hearing held on 8 September. Álvarez’s defense has appealed, saying she was absent despite having expressed an interest in attending; it wants the hearing declared void and the proceedings returned to the point before it was scheduled. If upheld, the appeal could affect the validity of the order sending the defendants to trial. The case file must also be allocated among the Provincial Court’s criminal sections, and a professional judge appointed to preside. The court has 15 criminal sections, generally with five magistrates each, though three are excluded from allocation of this type of case.
On June 20, Judge Peinado formally opened the oral trial phase, imposing precautionary measures on Gómez and Álvarez. These include passport withdrawal and a travel ban, alongside mandatory court appearances. The Section 23 magistrates will address further appeals, including those contesting the indictments, at a later date. In a separate administrative matter, Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary concluded that Peinado’s conduct in the investigation did not amount to a disciplinary violation or breach a witness’s rights. That review concerned judicial conduct, not the criminal allegations against Gómez.
The case has drawn national attention for its political implications and the legal precedents it may set for jury trials in complex corruption cases. Its outcome could influence future proceedings involving public figures and allegations of misuse of public resources. The situation echoes other recent judicial controversies in Spain, including the legal battles surrounding Vicent Mompó, which highlighted tensions between political office and judicial scrutiny. That issue is explored in a related report on calls for legal action against the president of Valencia’s provincial council.
Spain’s legal system allows jury trials in certain criminal cases, but their use in high-profile political matters remains rare and often contested. The Madrid Provincial Court’s decision will be closely watched for its implications for the balance between judicial independence and political accountability, as well as its practical consequences for those involved.
