Judge Juan Carlos Peinado will face no disciplinary action for suggesting that police officers might help Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spain’s Prime Minister, avoid prosecution. The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (TSJM) found his remarks "indelicate" but not serious enough to warrant a sanction under Spanish law.
The case began when the Sindicato Unificado de Policía (SUP) filed a complaint, arguing that Peinado’s written speculation in a June 2026 court order unfairly cast suspicion on the National Police. Peinado, who is overseeing the investigation into Gómez, raised the possibility that her police protection could, in theory, be used to help her escape, either by officers acting on their own or following orders. Spanish media reported that the complaint focused on Peinado's June 20, 2026, order, which moved the case forward and required Gómez to surrender her passport and comply with a travel ban.
The TSJM closed the case, finding Peinado's comments too hypothetical to count as a disciplinary offense. The process ended at the preliminary inquiry stage, short of a full disciplinary proceeding.
The SUP’s complaint went to the Consejo General del Poder Judicial, which referred the matter to the TSJM. The court’s Permanent Commission, led by Isabel Perelló, asked whether Peinado’s language could amount to a minor disciplinary offense under Article 419.2 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial. The TSJM’s acting president opened a summary inquiry and requested Peinado’s explanation. Spanish legal commentators reported that the Permanent Commission formally referred the case to the TSJM on July 28 to assess whether a minor infraction had occurred.
After reviewing the facts, the TSJM concluded that Peinado’s comments could be seen as clumsy and potentially damaging to the police’s reputation, but were too vague and hypothetical to justify a sanction. The court said judges can face disciplinary measures only for statements that are inappropriate and whose precise wording seriously damages the reputation of public institutions or their staff. The TSJM noted that Peinado's words might be considered "poco delicada" (not very delicate), but found this insufficient for disciplinary liability, as national outlets reported.
The TSJM stressed the need to read disciplinary rules strictly, especially when assessing a judge’s conduct. It found that Peinado’s remarks, though unfortunate, did not amount to misconduct. Because his scenario was hypothetical and imprecise, it could not be treated as a punishable offense. Judicial sources cited in the Spanish press said the case was formally closed as "información sumaria," a preliminary review rather than a full disciplinary process.
This disciplinary episode comes amid a broader criminal investigation involving Begoña Gómez. The deadline for her written defense in the basic case, focused on alleged fraud and influence peddling, is September 7, 2026. Separately, on September 2, Gómez was summoned in another case over a possible false complaint against journalist Vito Quiles. Both are scheduled to testify on October 23, 2026.
Spanish courts have faced scrutiny before over the limits of judicial expression and the reputation of institutions. Similar issues have arisen, for example, in the investigation into political interference at the El Tarajal border.
The TSJM’s ruling closes the disciplinary case against Peinado and reaffirms that judges cannot be punished for their legal reasoning unless their words are clearly inappropriate and concretely damaging. The police union remains frustrated, seeing the remarks as an attack on its integrity, while the legal standard for disciplining judges remains high. The decision makes clear that judicial speculation will not lead to sanctions unless it is specific and serious enough to demonstrate harm. The court’s position draws a line: judicial independence is protected, but judges are still expected to use restraint and precision in their language.
