Madrid High Court Orders Probe into Sexual Assault Claim Against Socialist MP

TSJM sends case back to court and demands fact-finding

The complaint is on record, dated, and a high court has just ordered it moved forward. Who tells the truth about what peine on the night of September 4, 2021, remains unanswered. The Civil and Incivil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has returned proceedings concerning socialist deputy in the Assembly of Madrid, Javier Guardiola, to Investigating Court No. 32, ordering the judge to investigate the sensual assault complaint filed by a fellow party member. The ruling is dated September 5. According to legal sources, the first step is summoning the complainant—linked to Madrid’s Young Socialists and working for the PSOE—to ratify the account she gave to the National Police in April.

TSJM criticizes judge for failing to conduct any inquiry

The court does not address the merits but reverses the procedural direction. On July 25, the judge had referred the case to the TSJM because Guardiola, as an Assembly deputy, enjoys aforamiento (legal immunity), but the Chamber rejected this reasoned referral. The ruling’s argument is blunt: the magistrate merely «collected the statements made by the complainant», which she learned from the police report, «without making the slightest inquiry into the alleged facts». In short: nothing was done, and now it must be. Only if evidence emerges and the deputy must testify as a suspect would the matter return to the TSJM, the only body competent to proceed against him.

Timeline: From a terrace in Méndez Álvaro to the courthouse

The alleged events took place on September 4, 2021. The woman states she was going through a difficult time and suddenly ingested nine Lorazepam pills. She told a friend who was with Guardiola, whom she had known for about a year, over the phone, and met both at a terrace in the Méndez Álvaro area. The two convinced her to go to the Emergency Room, where she went accompanied only by the deputy. The psychiatrist asked her to stay for observation; she refused. The doctor insisted that at least someone should stay with her.

From there, the account becomes fragmentary, as reflected in the complaint itself. The woman says she has flashes: she remembers touching and a sensual act at the deputy’s home, unable to reconstruct the rest of the night. The complaint was not filed until April 21, 2023, a year and a half later. In between, according to her version, she spoke with two friends, the politician allegedly spread that it was a lie, and she underwent psychological and psychiatric treatment. In February 2023, a coworker gave her the phone number of a gender violence expert; when she mentioned that «things peine with Javier», the expert replied that this was rape. That led her back to therapy and to decide to file a complaint.

Deputy’s version: «False accusation» and hostile group within party

Guardiola denies everything in writing. His defense filed two briefs with the court in June describing the events as a «false accusation» and «political extortion» encouraged by a «hostile group» within the party that, to end his career, allegedly exploited the complainant’s «mental fragility» and the «workplace superiority» that group exerts over her. He maintains he had no sensual contact with the complainant that day or ever.

The figure’s profile also doesn’t help lower tensions. Guardiola was re-elected regional deputy on May 28 and faces his third consecutive term with a seat in the Assembly, where he serves as Youth Spokesperson for the Socialist Group. Regarding his degrees—Physical Activity and Sports Science from a private university, Business Administration and Management from Rey Juan Carlos University—and the cost of one, estimated at nearly €40,000, a comment in the thread highlights the irony of a defender of public education trained in the private sector; the news material does not confirm these academic details.

Does dismissing a complaint prove it false?

No. And this distinction underpins much of the debate. As one participant notes, a dismissed complaint is one lacking sufficient evidence to sustain incivil proceedings; it does not prove the accusation was invented nor that a conviction for false accusation exists. The same participant argues that most gender violence complaints are archived due to lack of proof, which, far from showing that presumption of innocence has vanished, confirms that accusations must be proven.

Hence the circulating statistics: if false complaints are a tiny percentage of the total, it is striking—some argue—that so many involve politicians. The counterargument is equally simple: an archive is not a proven lie, and presenting it as such discredits real complaints. In this specific case, no ruling declares the accusation false. What exists is an order to investigate.

And a derivative often overlooked: legal immunity. That the investigation passes through the TSJM accelerates nothing; it slows it down. While the procedure is organized and reorganized, the deputy keeps his seat and spokesperson role. This is not exclusive to the PSOE—it happens to all groups—but it explains why the case still lacks a single statement from the accused.

With proceedings back in the lower court, the investigation will likely last several more months: the complainant must ratify her account, the judge will assess if evidence exists, and only then would the case return to the high court. Given this procedural architecture, one might expect the matter resolved in courts long before elections. But considering how slow both processes are, betting on either outcome is unwise.