Begoña Gómez asks the Audience of Madrid a new date to resolve his appeal against the file of the complaint to Vito Quiles

The Council General of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has failed to reach a consensus on disciplinary complaints against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado and will continue its deliberations in the coming days. The permanent commission of the CGPJ met on Tuesday but did not agree on whether to dismiss five disciplinary proceedings initiated due to allegations against Peinado, who is investigating Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. These proceedings were triggered by complaints filed by several individuals, including the Minister of Presidency, Justice, and Relations with the Cortes, Félix Bolaños, the group Más Madrid, socialist deputy Pedro Guillermo Hita, Begoña Gómez’s advisor Cristina Álvarez, and a private citizen. The fifth complaint relates to expressions made by Peinado regarding the National Police in a ruling where he ordered the revocation of Gómez’s passport, a measure later partially revoked by the Madrid Provincial Court. Peinado’s remarks in the ruling suggested that members of the security detail accompanying Gómez could have facilitated her escape from Spain, potentially obstructing justice. This led to a formal complaint from Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska, who argued that the judge had questioned the professionalism of state security personnel. The CGPJ’s permanent commission was tasked with evaluating whether Peinado had committed a serious breach of decorum or abused his authority. While three progressive-aligned judges and the president of the CGPJ supported further investigation, four conservative members proposed that the issue should be resolved through regular legal channels rather than internal disciplinary action. The case against Gómez, which involves charges of abuse of influence and embezzlement, has drawn intense public scrutiny. The Madrid Provincial Court recently upheld the decision to proceed with a trial by jury, despite earlier rulings that annulled many of Peinado’s orders. The court cited the need to assess whether Gómez used her privileged position as the president’s spouse to advance her career. Critics argue that the evidence does not support such claims, noting that while Gómez holds a prestigious position, there is no conclusive proof of coercion or undue influence. Some legal experts have compared the case to the infamous Nóos case, where the husband of a royal family member was convicted for corruption, though the circumstances remain vastly different. Meanwhile, the debate over Peinado’s conduct continues within the judiciary. The CGPJ’s division reflects broader tensions between reformist and traditional factions within the system. Progressive voices advocate for maintaining judicial independence and ensuring accountability, while conservatives emphasize procedural adherence and institutional stability. The outcome of this deliberation could set a precedent for how the judiciary handles cases involving high-profile political figures. The president of the CGPJ, Isabel Perelló, retains the final say, and her decision will likely shape future disciplinary processes. Public reaction has been polarized. On one side, critics accuse the judiciary of overstepping its bounds, suggesting that Peinado’s comments were politically motivated and aimed at undermining law enforcement. Others defend the right of judges to scrutinize government actions, arguing that transparency is essential in a democracy. Social media platforms have become battlegrounds for these debates, with some calling for greater oversight of judicial behavior, while others warn against politicizing the courts. Legal associations and civil society groups have called for balanced discourse, emphasizing the importance of upholding both judicial integrity and respect for the rule of law. As the CGPJ continues its discussions, the case of Begoña Gómez remains a focal point of national attention. The resolution of the disciplinary proceedings against Peinado will not only affect his professional standing but also signal the direction of judicial policy in Spain. Meanwhile, Gómez’s legal team has requested a new hearing on her appeal against the dismissal of a previous complaint related to Vito Quiles, adding another layer of complexity to an already contentious legal landscape. The next steps will depend on the CGPJ’s final determination, which could take weeks to materialize.