The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid has concluded one of the two disciplinary complaints against investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado without imposing a sanction. The court’s acting president, Aurora de la Cueva, found no disciplinary offence in a passage in which Peinado mentioned the hypothetical possibility that the police protection officers of Begoña Gómez might facilitate an escape. The wording was “not very tactful”, but too vague to meet the definition of an offence punishable under the law of the Consejo General del Poder Judicial .
The preliminary inquiry now closed concerned a ruling ordering the withdrawal of Begoña Gómez’s passport in June 2026. The reasoning in that passage prompted complaints, including from within police circles. The case was referred by the Consejo General del Poder Judicial to the Madrid High Court at the end of July 2026. In its decision, the court emphasised that disciplinary rules must be interpreted narrowly: abstract, hypothetical allegations without sufficient specificity do not justify a sanction. The court also made clear that disciplinary assessment must be kept separate from criminal proceedings.
Separately, a second complaint, also forwarded by the judicial council, over a possible delay in handling the case (“retraso en la tramitación”) remains pending. The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid has yet to rule on it. It remains unclear whether this will lead to formal disciplinary proceedings. According to the court, the judge concerned is in the final stage of his career.
The complaint now dismissed related solely to the choice of words and level of detail in the reasoning in the proceedings in question. The court noted that disciplinary sanctions require the breach of duty to be specified and clearly classified in law. It found that this was not the case here. The preliminary inquiry (“diligencia informativa”) was therefore closed.
The proceedings against Begoña Gómez before the ordinary courts are unaffected by the decision. The Madrid High Court ruling does not alter the conditions imposed at the time; it concerns only the disciplinary assessment of the judge’s remarks. Further steps in the still-pending complaint are now a matter for the leadership of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, following a review of the case file.
Editor: Phillipe Schmidt-Araguin (Article created with AI assistance).