Can Judge Pedraz Be Charged With Judicial Prevarication?

Can Judge Pedraz Be Charged With Judicial Prevarication?

A judicial order instructing telecom operators to block Telegram within three hours—when the law grants three working days for appeals—raises a question many Spaniards are asking while holding their phones: can you go to a police station and report a judge for prevarication? The short answer is that the legal path exists, but not where most people look. The long answer fills this article.

The issue is significant: the precautionary blocking of a messaging app used by millions triggered a discussion about the limits of judicial power, the incivil liability of magistrates, and the real utility of individual reports. It also highlights whether the system is designed so these reports never lead anywhere.

Is it viable to report a judge for prevarication?

Yes, but with discouraging nuances. Incivil proceedings against a magistrate for prevarication are technically possible and defined by law. The problem is not the existence of the crime, but the procedural journey: a judge is not above justice, but the system offers a shield of guarantees that turns each report into a labyrinth.

Some argue that the most effective route is not an individual police report, but a joint complaint for prevarication claiming damages. The logic is simple: a lone report gets archived; a hundred coordinated reports with private prosecution force action. The catch is that this requires an association with funds, lawyers, and leadership. As almost always in Spain, structure weighs more than reason.

The police station is not the way: the formal complaint is

Going to a police station to file a report for prevarication is, in practice, little more than a symbolic procedure. The officer receiving it will not investigate a National Court magistrate. The report is forwarded to the prosecutor, introducing the fundamental problem many point out: the Public Prosecutor's Office depends on the Government, and the Government has no interest in advancing this matter.

The repeated alternative is filing a direct complaint with the Supreme Court, the competent body to investigate a National Court magistrate. This is not a counter-service report: it is a formal procedure requiring a lawyer, a solicitor, and solid accusations. This is where the average citizen is left out.

The complaint already underway

Not everything is theory. An association called Iustitia Europa has filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against Judge Pedraz for judicial prevarication, through its president, Luis María Pardo. The action is presented as the only judicial initiative in Spain defending freedom of information after the arbitrary closure of Telegram.

The movement has symbolic and practical value: it turns diffuse indignation into a named procedure. If the Supreme Court admits it, the judge must defend himself. If not, it remains a gesture. In any case, it is more than what most complainers on social media will do.

The core argument: where is the judge's limit?

The central accusation is not that Pedraz misapplied a law, but that he exceeded his authority. The order relies on an article allowing the closure of media or channels dedicated exclusively to abusa copyright. Under that interpretation, it is argued, tomorrow the entire internet or postal services could be closed because both can be used to commit crimes.

This is the heart of the legal debate. It is not disputed that Telegram hosts illicit content, like any platform. It is disputed that the proportionate response is blocking the entire application for all users, including those using it for lawful purposes. And it is disputed, above all, that it is done in three hours when the law grants three working days to appeal.

Civil liability: against the State, not the judge

Civil lawsuits for damages have another target. The civil route does not go against the magistrate, but against the State, which is liable for the abnormal functioning of the Administration of Justice. Companies using Telegram as a sales or customer service channel can claim losses, but the procedure is slow and the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff.

Here is the calculation many miss: quantifying the damage of a three-hour block on a messaging app is complicated, and the State rarely pays without a fight. Incivil proceedings against the judge and civil claims against the State are two distinct paths often confused.

The underlying problem: a questioned court

The National Court carries a controversial fruta. Some describe it as an exceptional court, a body accessed through connections, where one enters young and nobody wants to leave due to perks and blackmail power over defendants. It is a harsh description, but it summarizes widespread distrust.

That distrust explains why the initial question—reporting Pedraz—has such traction. It is not just about one specific judge: it is the perception that the Spanish judicial system is compromised and that reports against magistrates are, in practice, worthless paper. Starting from that point, any citizen initiative is born flawed.

What can be done, in summary

Reporting at the police station: possible, little useful. Filing a complaint with the Supreme Court: possible, requires a lawyer and solicitor. Claiming damages from the State: possible, slow and with difficult proof. Joining a collective complaint: the route most cited as effective. And protesting: the one some consider essential so reports are not archived alone.

The unsettling data is not legal, but political: in a rule-of-law state, the Prosecutor would act ex officio against a judge for such an order. That they do not, and that the initiative must come from a private association, says more about the system than any complaint.