The Madrid High Court has decided not to discipline Judge Peinado after he suggested police could help Begoña Gómez flee. The ruling follows a complaint from the police union and a review of judicial conduct.
Judge Juan Carlos Peinado will not face 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, had 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. According to Spanish media, the complaint focused on Peinado's June 20, 2026 order, which moved the case forward and imposed a passport surrender and travel ban on Gómez.
The TSJM decided to close the case after finding that Peinado's comments were too hypothetical to count as a disciplinary offense. The process ended at the preliminary inquiry stage, not as a full disciplinary proceeding.
The SUP’s complaint was sent 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 be considered 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. As reported by Spanish legal commentators, the Permanent Commission formally referred the case to the TSJM on July 28 to assess if a minor infraction had occurred.
After reviewing the facts, the TSJM concluded that while Peinado’s comments could be seen as clumsy and potentially damaging to the police’s reputation, they were too vague and hypothetical to justify a sanction. The court stressed that disciplinary measures against judges are reserved for statements that are not only inappropriate but also concrete, precise, and seriously damaging to 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 was not enough for disciplinary liability, as reported by national outlets.
The TSJM emphasized the need for a strict reading of disciplinary rules, especially when judging a judge’s conduct. The court 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, not a full disciplinary process.
This disciplinary episode comes amid a broader criminal investigation involving Begoña Gómez. The deadline for her written defense in the main case—focused on alleged fraud and influence peddling—is set for 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.
This is not the first time Spanish courts have faced scrutiny over the limits of judicial expression and the reputation of institutions. Similar issues have come up before, such as 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 both clearly inappropriate and concretely damaging. The police union remains frustrated, seeing the remarks as an attack on their integrity, but the legal standard for disciplining judges remains high. The decision makes clear that, in Spain, even provocative judicial speculation will not lead to sanctions unless it is specific, serious, and demonstrably harmful. The court’s position draws a line: judicial independence is protected, but judges are still expected to use restraint and precision in their language.
