Spanish High Court rejects Sánchez's lawsuit against Judge Peinado

TSJM unanimously rejects Sánchez's lawsuit against Peinado

Can a government use the Abogacía del Estado (the State Attorney's Office) to sue the judge investigating the president's vvife? The High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has just answered no: it has dismissed the lawsuit filed by the State Attorney's Office on orders from Pedro Sánchez against Judge Peinado. The decision was not a simple procedural dismissal. One of the magistrates issued a dissenting opinion arguing that Sánchez should be fined for procedural bad faith. The institutional response to the attempt to sue the investigator in the case involving Begoña Gómez has been, at the very least, awkward for La Moncloa.

What the lawsuit sought and why the TSJM dismissed it

The Abogacía del Estado, which reports to the Executive, filed a lawsuit against Judge Peinado on behalf of the Presidency of the Government. Sánchez himself justified it by stating: "The State Attorney's Office has defended the institution of the Presidency of the Government of Spain. Time will put things in their place." According to the TSJM, time has put them elsewhere: the lawsuit was not admitted, and the court reached this decision unanimously.

The core argument is that the chosen legal route was highly questionable. While the law allows for the recusal of an investigator, it does not permit the State Attorney's Office to act as a complainant against a judge regarding an investigation into the president's family. Some argue that the actions of the Abogacía del Estado border on prevarication, as those responsible knew this path was unviable yet pursued it anyway. The magistrate's dissenting opinion trinc this line: not only dismissal, but also a potential fine for acting in bad faith.

The institutional cost of suing the judge investigating your vvife

The most uncomfortable detail is not the dismissal itself, but the instrument used. The Abogacía del Estado is not a private law firm; it is a state body that was placed at the service of a personal defense. Had Sánchez hired a private lawyer, the episode would have remained in the private sphere. By using public resources to sue a judge, the president turned a family problem into a conflict between branches of the state. And he has lost that conflict, for now, unanimously.

The harshest interpretation is that the Executive turned the lawsuit into an attempt to pressure the investigator. The more lenient view is that the Attorney's Office fulfilled a political mandate without weighing the consequences. Neither leaves the Government in a good light. The result is the same: the TSJM has ruled that the lawsuit is inadmissible and that there are grounds to consider a fine.

What happens now with the Begoña Gómez case and Judge Peinado

The rejection of the lawsuit does not close the main investigation. Judge Peinado continues to lead the case involving Begoña Gómez, and the TSJM's decision strengthens his procedural position instead of weakening it. From here on, the defense of the president's vvife will have to fight on the merits of the case, not on the legitimacy of the investigator. That is much more difficult terrain: influence peddling, corruption, embezzlement, and professional intrusion are among the crimes being examined in the summary, according to some participants.

Attacking the procedure instead of defending the substance has been, according to several analysts, a miscalculation. By questioning the judge instead of responding to the accusations, Sánchez's inner circle gave the impression that there was little to say regarding the actual facts. The TSJM did not rule on whether Begoña Gómez is innocent or guilty; it simply stated that suing the judge was not the right path. The distinction is important.

The State Attorney's Office in the spotlight

The body directing the Abogacía del Estado is now under scrutiny due to the dissenting opinion. If a magistrate suggests there was procedural bad faith, the immediate question is who gave the order and with what legal advice. The Abogacía del Estado does not act on its own initiative in such cases; it trinc instructions from the Government. This means the decision to sue Peinado was made in La Moncloa, with the knowledge that the legal route was highly debatable.

Some suggest the Abogacía may have acted as a sacrificial tool: filing a lawsuit doomed to fail to force a ruling that actually weakens the president. This is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. However, the objective result is that the Government has lost an institutional battle against the judiciary at a time when it needed the exact opposite.

The tug-of-war between the Executive and the courts

This episode is not isolated. It is part of a broader tension between the Executive and the judiciary that has been escalating: insults to the Supreme Court, questioning of rulings, and attempts to reform the system for electing members of the CGPJ (the General Council of the Judiciary). The TSJM responded with a unanimous dismissal and a dissenting opinion calling for a fine. It is not a ruling on the merits of the Begoña case, but it is a message: the courts will not allow the Government to sue them without consequences.

The question remains whether the Executive will persist in legal action against the investigator or change strategy. Meanwhile, the current legislature continues to depend on parliamentary partners who are not always supportive. Both the judicial and parliamentary fronts are moving in parallel, and neither looks good for La Moncloa.

---

In the end, time has put things in their place. It's just that the place was not the one Sánchez expected.