The Madrid Prosecutor’s Office challenged Judge Juan Carlos Peinado’s decision to confiscate the passport of Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, and bar her from leaving Spain. In an appeal to the Provincial Court, prosecutors argued that the restrictions lacked individualized justification and that the alleged risk of flight was unsupported. They disputed the judge’s reliance on online claims about Gómez’s alleged Dominican Republic citizenship. Prosecutor José Manuel San Baldomero represented the prosecution’s position on the precautionary measures.
Gómez and her Moncloa adviser, Cristina Álvarez, faced travel restrictions that included passport confiscation, a ban on leaving Spain and court appearances twice a month. Prosecutors said the measures were unnecessary and disproportionate, and challenged the use of possible prison sentences and an alleged flight risk to justify them. The restrictions were imposed as Peinado, a judge at Madrid’s Court of Instruction No. 41, moved the investigation toward trial over alleged influence peddling and corruption in business, as well as misappropriation and embezzlement.
Peinado’s reasoning relied in part on a request by Hazte Oír, which was acting as a popular prosecution, and on the seriousness of the alleged offenses and potential sentences. The judge also raised the possibility that Gómez’s police security detail could help an escape abroad. Prosecutors rejected that scenario as unsupported, arguing that it unfairly cast suspicion on Spain’s law-enforcement institutions.
In response to the defense’s argument that Gómez was under constant police surveillance, Peinado cited previous escapes by high-profile figures in the European Union. Prosecutors countered that the assessment should account for Gómez’s Spanish nationality and lack of a criminal record, along with her personal and professional ties to Spain. They also pointed to her lack of assets or connections abroad that would make flight feasible, and challenged the use of rumors about Dominican citizenship to justify the restrictions.
The appeal also challenged Peinado’s reliance on a provincial court ruling involving drug trafficking, arguing that he had not explained its relevance to Gómez’s case. Prosecutors said the comparison was inappropriate and repeatedly sought dismissal of the proceedings, arguing that the restrictions and repeated court appearances served no legitimate legal purpose and risked functioning as premature punishment.
The Provincial Court of Madrid partially upheld appeals against Peinado’s decisions on 13 July 2026, lifting the restrictions imposed on Gómez. Her passport was returned, the travel ban was removed and the periodic reporting requirement ended. The court nevertheless allowed proceedings to continue over alleged influence peddling and embezzlement. The ruling separated the continuation of the criminal case from the need to maintain travel controls.
Peinado reopened oral proceedings on 21 September 2026 after the Provincial Court corrected his earlier decision. The revised case retained the allegations of influence peddling and embezzlement, while corruption in business was removed from the trial scope. Businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés was also excluded from that jury trial. The original order had included a broader set of alleged offenses against Gómez and Álvarez, including misappropriation. By October, the case was described as moving toward preparation for a popular-jury trial, although administrative steps remained incomplete and no trial date had been set.
In October 2026, the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office also sought the acquittal of Gómez and Álvarez, maintaining that the alleged facts did not constitute criminal offenses. That position went beyond its challenge to the precautionary measures and renewed its opposition to the criminal case itself. Gómez had earlier requested permission to attend the NATO summit in Ankara and her daughter’s graduation in London. Substitute judge Antonio Viejo authorized the London trip but denied permission to travel to Turkey while the restrictions were in force.
The case has highlighted tensions within Spain’s judicial system over the handling of high-profile investigations and the balance between judicial discretion and defendants’ rights. Similar debates have arisen in other recent rulings, including a recent court case involving Social Security in La Palma.
Spanish judges may impose precautionary measures to address risks such as flight or interference with justice. In this case, the Provincial Court’s July decision lifted Gómez’s travel restrictions while allowing proceedings on two alleged offenses to continue. Prosecutors later sought acquittals. By October 2026, no jury trial date had been set.
