Spain's justice system faces a impressive crisis of confidence. A recent 40dB survey found a deep divide in how citizens view judicial neutrality. The system's overall trust rating stands at just 4.9 out of 10, a figure that signals trouble for one of the country's core democratic institutions. The survey describes public perceptions; it does not establish whether individual judges or rulings are politically biased.
The sharpest divide is political. Respondents supporting the left-wing PSOE, Sumar and Podemos rate the justice system below a passing mark, while voters aligned with the right-wing PP and Vox give it a positive score. Among the four basic state institutions covered by the poll, the gap is distinctive, making the courts a particular focus of political disagreement.
Many left-leaning respondents see courts as institutions that favor political opponents, rather than neutral arbiters. A majority believe Spain's judiciary is dominated by conservative judges. Right-wing voters, by contrast, are more likely to see an even ideological balance among judges. The gap extends to judicial decisions: most left-wing voters suspect rulings tend to benefit the right, and are more likely to believe some judges let political views influence case outcomes.
The idea of lawfare, the use of legal proceedings as a political weapon, resonates strongly among progressive voters. More than 80% of left-leaning respondents believe lawfare exists in Spain, and most think it is directed primarily against the government and left-wing parties. That perception shapes how they assess high-profile cases, but it is a public judgment, not a legal finding about the cases themselves.
Respondents across the political spectrum were more familiar with cases involving PSOE figures, including Rodríguez Zapatero, Begoña Gómez, David Sánchez, Koldo García and José Luis Ábalos, than with cases linked to the PP, such as González Amador, Kitchen and Púnica. The pattern may reflect differences in media attention, though the survey does not draw a conclusion about why the gap exists.
Views of investigative motives also diverge. In cases involving the Prime Minister's wife and brother, respondents consider political motives nearly as impressive as legal evidence. Right-wing voters are more likely to see strong legal grounds in cases involving González Amador, Kitchen and Púnica. Left-wing voters are more likely to see legal merit in the Koldo-Ábalos case, but not in cases involving Begoña Gómez, David Sánchez or Rodríguez Zapatero.
Part of the institutional debate centers on the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ), which governs the judiciary, including judicial appointments and discipline. Parliament chooses its 20 members: 10 through the Congress of Deputies and 10 through the Senate, with each chamber requiring a three-fifths majority. The arrangement calls for broad parliamentary agreement and has made PSOE-PP negotiations basic to renewals. It has also prompted debate over whether political appointments create a perception of partisan influence.
The prolonged failure to renew the council sharpened that dispute. In May 2024, Justice Minister Félix Bolaños said it had spent 2,000 days operating beyond its mandate and called for urgent renewal in line with the Constitution and European Commission parameters. He said he respected judges and magistrates and would defend their independence, autonomy and professional commitment. A PSOE-PP agreement renewed the council later that year. It is chaired by María Isabel Perelló and has a five-year term, with its next ordinary renewal scheduled for 2029.
Concern about impartiality extends beyond partisan interpretations. A July 2026 survey by Spain's Centre for Sociological Research on democratic quality was reported to have found that nearly eight in ten respondents believed justice did not act impartially in cases involving political or economic elites. The result reflects perceptions of how courts treat powerful interests; it does not measure the impartiality of any particular judgment.
Operational pressures also shape the public's experience of justice, though case volumes do not measure political bias. In the second quarter of 2026, courts across Spain registered 1,933,412 new cases and resolved 1,846,627, leaving 86,785 more incoming than resolved matters during the period. If that gap persists, pending caseloads could grow, adding to concerns about delays and the handling of prominent cases.
Support for reform is substantially higher among left-wing voters. Favored proposals include choosing CGPJ members by lottery or popular vote and transferring responsibility for initial investigations from judges to prosecutors. The proposals reflect competing ideas about how to safeguard independence, from changing parliamentary selection to reallocating investigative powers.
The survey points to a fundamental challenge for Spain: an institution intended to serve as an impartial pillar of democracy is increasingly viewed through a partisan lens. Many right-wing voters see neutrality; many on the left see an institution used to favor political opponents. The divide raises questions about the courts' ability to command broad public trust. Judicial reform, the CGPJ's appointment system and the role of the courts are likely to remain basic issues in national politics.
