Minister Félix Bolaños has launched a final appeal after the Judicial Council refused to sanction Judge Peinado. The case exposes deep divisions over judicial accountability and the boundaries of disciplinary oversight in Spain.
Spain’s Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, has intensified his dispute with the judiciary after the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) declined to sanction Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. This follows a year-long disciplinary process and several formal complaints. Bolaños now accuses the CGPJ of protecting its own members and eroding public trust in the justice system. He plans to take the case to the Supreme Court.
The dispute centers on Judge Peinado’s conduct during an investigation involving Bolaños. According to documents reviewed by EL PAÍS, Bolaños claims that Peinado’s approach during a tense interrogation at the Ministry of the Presidency crossed the line from standard procedure into intimidation and arbitrariness. Bolaños points to Peinado’s threat to change his status from witness to suspect during questioning, his request for a raised platform to physically dominate the room, and his decision to pause proceedings so Bolaños could seek information. The minister argues these actions do not meet judicial standards.
In early September, Spanish media reported that the investigation into Begoña Gómez, led by Judge Peinado, had reached the final stage of preliminary hearings and was being prepared for possible jury trial.
Despite these complaints, the CGPJ’s disciplinary chief ruled in August that Peinado’s actions were within the bounds of judicial discretion and imposed no penalty. This decision came after 427 days of internal review. Most of the council’s conservative bloc and one Sumar appointee voted to close the case, while two progressive members dissented. Bolaños says this outcome shows a pattern of "corporativism" and a failure to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
Bolaños’s concerns go beyond his own interrogation. He cites Peinado’s attempt to have him investigated by the Supreme Court—a move the high court rejected for lack of evidence—as well as alleged leaks of confidential documents to the press and the exclusion of the public prosecutor from key decisions. Bolaños argues these actions have damaged the reputation of Spanish justice and that the CGPJ’s refusal to act only deepens the crisis.
In his latest appeal, Bolaños questions the impartiality of the disciplinary process, noting he was denied access to documents that might clarify whether Peinado’s attempt to implicate him was retaliatory. He also criticizes the CGPJ for relying only on the judge’s account when dismissing allegations of leaks and irregularities. Bolaños insists that oversight should not be suspended just because questionable conduct happens during a judicial proceeding, especially when decisions seem arbitrary or lack clear justification.
In July 2026, the Madrid Provincial Appeals Chamber partially adjusted Judge Peinado's actions: it maintained the path to a jury trial but closed two episodes and lifted precautionary measures, including the seizure of the passport and travel ban, marking a significant procedural shift.
Judge Peinado is set to retire in September, but Bolaños says he will pursue the matter before the Supreme Court, arguing that only an external review can restore confidence in the system. The CGPJ maintains that any correction of Peinado’s conduct should come from a higher judicial authority, not from disciplinary sanctions.
This standoff is not unique. Spain’s judiciary has faced growing scrutiny over its internal accountability, as seen in other recent cases such as the Ceuta border controversy, where the Supreme Court president publicly warned against political interference in judicial affairs—a situation reported earlier by RUSSPAIN. The Bolaños-Peinado dispute adds to the debate over whether the CGPJ is willing or able to police its own ranks, or is more interested in shielding judges from outside criticism.
This case highlights the limits of Spain’s current system for disciplining judges. When the oversight body refuses to act, citing judicial independence, it risks blurring the line between legitimate autonomy and unchecked power. Bolaños’s decision to take the matter to the Supreme Court is a direct challenge to the culture of self-protection within the upper levels of Spanish justice. If the Supreme Court sides with Bolaños, it could set a new standard for transparency and accountability. If not, it will reinforce the sense that, in Spain, the judiciary answers only to itself.
