Spain's Judicial Council Shields Judge Peinado Despite Procedural Abuses

Spain's Judicial Council Shields Judge Peinado Despite Procedural Abuses

Juan Carlos Peinado, the judge investigating Begoña Gómez, has accumulated a series of procedural actions in recent months that legal analysts suggest border on prevarication. However, the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has not only failed to open an inquiry but has actively endorsed his work. This controversy has become central to judicial debate in Spain.

A History of Errors by Judge Peinado

Among the cited irregularities is the requirement for a visa to travel to the United Kingdom, a condition that does not exist—only electronic proof is needed—which led the defense to allege ignorance of procedure. Critics also condemned the confiscation of Gómez’s passport, a measure many jurists deem disproportionate given her lack of incivil record and family ties. The discussion highlights that Complutense University demands the return of over €113,000 for software developed with public funds, allegedly registered under Gómez’s name and commercialized via Transforma TSC S.L., concealed from the university and sponsors like Indra, Telefónica, and Google.

CGPJ Support and the Shadow of Lawfare

The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid unanimously dismissed Pedro Sánchez’s complaint against Judge Peinado for prevarication, accusing the plaintiff of abuse of rights. Critics interpret this as systemic shielding of judges, while supporters view it as a guarantee of independence. The PSOE has denounced a lawfare operation, citing over thirty magistrates involved in cases against Sánchez’s circle. Conversely, defenders argue the investigation has merit: an individual with no prior training or connections was appointed director of a master’s program and subsequently registered publicly funded software under their own name.

Corporate Protection or Independence Guarantee?

The underlying debate contrasts two views of judicial power. Some see Judge Peinado as an instrument of conservative lawfare; others argue true lawfare is institutional harassment of judges by the government. A notable detail: before the 2015 reform, judges could be directly sued for damages. Rajoy’s government removed this possibility, further protecting the judiciary. Today, amidst cross-criticism, perceptions of judicial impunity grow.

The CGPJ continues to support the judge. Meanwhile, the case proceeds, leaving questions about the limits of judicial action and corporate protection unresolved. As some analyses conclude, attempts to distract from the core issue are increasingly difficult to sustain.