Spanish court orders Podemos leader Ione Belarra to pay €9,000 to retired judge for calling him corrupt on X

The court ruling

A first instance court in Madrid (Juzgado de Primera Instancia Número 45) has found that Belarra’s statements on X in 2024 caused ‘unlawful interference’ with the judge’s right to honour and must be compensated with €9,000. García Castellón had originally sought €350,000, arguing that the post reached 685,000 views and gathered more than 5,000 ‘likes’, amplifying the reputational harm. The judgment also compels Belarra to publish the ruling on her X profile, the same platform where the infringement occurred.

The court rejected the claim that her parliamentary immunity shielded the remarks, noting that the Supreme Court had already referred the case to the civil jurisdiction because the post was not made in the exercise of her parliamentary duties.

Belarra’s immediate response

Moments after the ruling became public, Belarra posted on X a defiant message repeating her accusations.

“I’m sentenced to pay €9,000 to García Castellón, the judge who goes to Cartagena de Indias with the Plus Ultra corrupts, who has protected the corrupt of the PP and waged a dirty judicial war against Podemos. They will persecute us, but they won’t make us shut up.”

The reference to Cartagena de Indias alludes to earlier criticism of the judge’s travel, while the mention of the PP (Partido Popular) echoes long‑standing allegations of judicial bias favouring the conservative opposition.

Party and allies rally behind Belarra

Podemos co‑spokesperson Pablo Echenique escalated the confrontation by accusing the judiciary of leaking the sentence to the media before it was formally served on Belarra.

“They leaked the sentence mafiosamente while Ione didn’t even have official notice yet. They are punishing a former minister for exercising her freedom of expression in the political sphere.”

Irene Montero, Podemos MEP and former equality minister, echoed Belarra almost verbatim and added:

“I only hope he doesn’t spend it in Cartagena de Indias. They punish us but they won’t buy our silence.”

Fellow MEP Isa Serra framed the ruling as an attack on constitutionally protected opinion, while co‑spokesperson Pablo Fernández insisted: ‘We won’t stop calling corrupt people corrupt, no matter how much they try.’

A broader clash over free speech and the judiciary

The sentence has reignited a deeply polarised debate in Spain. Supporters of Podemos view the fine as a mechanism to silence political denunciation; critics argue Belarra overstepped by accusing a judge of crimes without evidence. Echenique’s reference to a ‘mafia‑style’ leak drew condemnation from some quarters as an attack on institutional integrity, while others see it as a symptom of growing distrust in the judicial system.

Belarra’s own legal history adds context: in 2024 the Supreme Court dismissed a hate‑crime complaint against her over statements on Israel, ruling that criticism of military action could not be equated with antisemitism. The present case, however, turns on the limits of parliamentary privilege when publishing on social media.