Félix Bolaños appeals to CGPJ over withheld file on Judge Juan Carlos Peinado

Appeal for case file access

Spanish Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Cortes Félix Bolaños filed an administrative appeal before the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) on Thursday, 24 September 2026. The filing challenges the decision of the judicial governing body to withhold the complete administrative file concerning his formal complaints against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. Peinado leads Court of Instruction No. 41 in Madrid and has overseen the judicial investigation involving Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The Disciplinary Action Promoter of the CGPJ archived Bolaños' initial complaints in August 2026 and subsequently rejected his request for the underlying documentation, citing the confidentiality of preliminary disciplinary inquiries. Bolaños argues that withholding the records creates an effective lack of defence, depriving him of facts required to pursue further legal remedies before the Supreme Court. The minister contested the secrecy designation, asserting that confidentiality rules exist to shield magistrates from the general public rather than from complainants.

Procedural delays and judicial retirement

The appeal focuses heavily on the contrasting timelines in the council's handling of the case. The initial grievance submitted by Bolaños remained without resolution for 427 days (over 14 months) before the Disciplinary Action Promoter archived it, whereas the Permanent Commission took 18 days to examine and reject his first appeal. Peinado completes his final active working day in the judiciary on Friday, 25 September 2026, before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 72 on Sunday, 27 September. Bolaños accused conservative members of the Permanent Commission of allowing an unjustifiable delay that permitted the judge to leave office without facing disciplinary accountability.

The conclusion that unfortunately emerges is that for months a situation of paralysis was tolerated that objectively favored the reported judge's retirement becoming a factor of impunity for him.

Supreme Court submission and impartiality questions

A key objective of the appeal is to establish the precise date when the CGPJ notified Peinado of the complaints filed against him. Bolaños stated that this timestamp is essential to verify whether Peinado already knew about the disciplinary filing before asking the Supreme Court to open proceedings against the minister. The complaints followed Bolaños' appearance as a witness before Peinado and the judge's later decision to send a reasoned submission to the Supreme Court. The CGPJ Permanent Commission rejected Bolaños' appeal against shelving the sanctions roughly 24 hours after Peinado ordered the opening of an oral trial for Begoña Gómez.

It is a particularly damaging appearance, as it feeds a perception of harmful corporatism that damages the image of justice and is hardly compatible with the trust that citizens must be able to place in the disciplinary control mechanisms of the judiciary.

Investigation of leaks and judicial governance

The appeal also questions whether the CGPJ conducted any genuine investigative work to determine whether Peinado was responsible for leaks of judicial resolutions during the Gómez case. Bolaños criticized the council's legal rationale as regulatory cherry-picking and described the resulting framework as an arbitrary hybrid regime. The minister maintains that full disclosure of the file is necessary to verify circumstances tied directly to the fundamental right to an impartial judge. The administrative appeal asks the CGPJ to reverse its refusal and deliver the documentation so the ministry can determine future legal action.