Madrid court dismisses police complaint against judge in Begoña Gómez case

Court dismisses police union complaint

The High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has closed disciplinary proceedings against investigative judge Juan Carlos Peinado over remarks regarding police escorts. The inquiry originated from a formal complaint filed by the Unified Police Union (SUP) regarding statements in a judicial resolution dated 20 June 2026. The union maintained that Peinado cast unjustified suspicion on National Police officers assigned to protect Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. In an official resolution on 3 September 2026, the court presidency determined that the judge's assertions did not constitute a disciplinary fault under Article 419.2 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary. The decision clears Peinado of potential administrative sanctions as he approaches retirement due to age in the coming days.

Judicial assertions on flight risk

The controversy arose from Peinado's decision to order the withdrawal of Gómez's passport and mandate regular court appearances to manage perceived flight risk. Defence counsel for Gómez had argued that continuous custody and accompaniment by state security forces eliminated any possibility of flight. In his written resolution, Peinado rejected this defence, asserting that assigned officers might facilitate an escape.

There is no doubt that these agents, at a given moment, either on their own initiative or following orders from their hierarchical superiors, may be precisely the ones who collaborate in the action or actions carried out to facilitate that flight.

The precautionary measures imposed by Peinado, who heads Court of Instruction No. 41 in Madrid, were later overturned by the Madrid Provincial Court.

Referral through judicial oversight bodies

The police union presented its complaint to the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) immediately after the June resolution became public. Union representative Alberto Prieto Conesa argued in the submission that the magistrate's wording projected generalized suspicion over police personnel without attributing specific acts to any individual officer. On 28 July 2026, the CGPJ Permanent Commission voted to transfer the dossier to the Madrid High Court, with Council President María Isabel Perelló casting the deciding vote to override a dismissal proposal from the Disciplinary Action Promoter. The TSJM presidency opened a summary inquiry on 31 July 2026 and requested a formal report directly from the magistrate before issuing its ruling.

Legal reasoning and case background

In its final resolution, the TSJM presidency affirmed that disciplinary liability cannot arise from a judge's jurisdictional decision-making criteria. The court acknowledged that Peinado's phrasing could be considered inelegant and disconnected from the customary service of state security forces, but ruled that its diffuse and hypothetical phrasing prevented disciplinary punishment. Article 419.2 of the judiciary law penalizes disregard toward equals, subordinates, or citizens with penalties ranging from 6,000-euro fines to forced transfers or suspensions. The ruling follows the earlier dismissal of complaints filed against Peinado by Justice Minister Félix Bolaños, who had demanded swift council action after testifying as a witness in the two-and-a-half-year investigation into Gómez for alleged influence peddling and embezzlement.