L'autorité disciplinaire du pouvoir judiciaire refuse d'enregistrer le juge de violence de genre qui a déclaré que les femmes avaient des "avantages" à dénoncer

The disciplinary authority of Spain’s judiciary has rejected pursuing disciplinary action against Judge David Maman, a specialist in gender-based violence cases, over remarks he made suggesting women have advantages when reporting domestic abuse. The Council General of the Judiciary (CGPJ), which oversees judicial conduct, decided not to proceed with formal charges against Maman after a review found his comments were not sanctionable under current rules. This decision came after a complaint was filed by Spain’s Ministry of Equality, which argued that Maman's statements were incompatible with judicial impartiality. Judge Maman made the controversial remarks during a seminar organized by the Madrid Bar Association on February 18. He was speaking about the process of filing complaints related to domestic violence, particularly regarding the case of former Police Director José Ángel González Jiménez, who resigned following allegations of sexual assault. Maman, who had been handling the investigation into González, stated that women have “so many advantages” when they file reports, including free legal aid and the ability to quickly obtain protective orders. During the two-hour session, parts of which were broadcast on La Sexta, Maman suggested that the risk of filing a complaint might be minimal, asking, “What does she lose?” In addition to these remarks, Maman criticized the system for making it too easy for women to secure protective measures, calling it a “nearly forced path.” He expressed frustration with how often lawyers would push clients toward filing complaints, even when the situation might not warrant such action. He also commented on the impact of protective orders on custody arrangements, stating that women are “rival enemies” when it comes to child custody decisions. The Ministry of Equality raised concerns that Maman’s statements reflected broader structural biases and stereotypes, undermining public trust in judicial fairness. In a post on social media platform X, Minister Ana Redondo accused Maman of holding “machist and misogynistic ideology,” arguing that he should avoid judging cases involving men accused of domestic violence or, alternatively, be recused from such cases. The CGPJ’s permanent commission, responsible for reviewing disciplinary matters, initially faced internal disagreement over whether to continue the investigation. The body postponed its final decision until a future meeting, citing lack of consensus among members. This delay follows similar delays in other cases, including one involving Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who is investigating the wife of Spain’s prime minister, Begoña Gómez. The CGPJ’s leadership, led by President Isabel Perelló and seven other members, four progressive and three conservative, has begun examining all these complaints, though no definitive rulings have yet been issued. The controversy surrounding Maman highlights ongoing tensions within Spain’s judiciary regarding the balance between judicial independence and public perception of impartiality. While some argue that judges must be allowed to express personal views, others maintain that such expressions can influence public confidence in the justice system. As discussions continue, the outcome of this case, and others like it, will likely shape how judicial conduct is evaluated in the years ahead.