The Fiscalía Provincial de Madrid has reprimanded investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado in a letter 20 September 2026 for his conduct in the proceedings against Begoña Gómez . According to the prosecution, the audiencia preliminar on 8 September 2026 was scheduled so hurriedly that parties to the proceedings were effectively bypassed. The authority states explicitly that it was “neither desirable nor acceptable to disregard the professionals”. At the same time, the prosecution opposes setting aside the hearing on the grounds of formal defects.
The intervention was prompted by a complaint from the defence of Cristina Álvarez, an assistant to Gómez, who had complained that she was unable to attend in person at the last procedural stage before the investigation concluded. In its note, the prosecution confirms that Judge Peinado shortened deadlines and ordered an “express” summons to the audiencia preliminar. It describes this as “unusual” and as showing “little sensitivity” towards the other parties. Nevertheless, the authority does not consider the threshold for setting aside the order to have been met, since the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the court some discretion over scheduling and physical attendance is not mandatory at this stage.
On the substance, the prosecution reiterates that during the investigation it had already found no sound grounds to suspect certain criminal offences. The newly published note does not change this: it does not challenge the continuation of the proceedings as such, but the way the judge scheduled and communicated the final phase of the investigation. The decision to reject the defence’s appeal is justified on grounds of procedural economy and compliance with the statutory framework.
The timing is also institutionally significant: Juan Carlos Peinado retired as planned; his transfer was published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado with effect from 27 September 2026. The proceedings therefore remain with the competent court for further consideration. The prosecution’s note documents a dual approach: restraint in assessing possible offences, and clear formal criticism of the judge’s handling of the proceedings. Whether the courts take these points into account in the next steps remains uncertain and will depend on future rulings.
The reprimand is expressly directed at the court, not the parties. Its aim is to protect the procedural rights of those involved while ensuring that the proceedings can continue – a balancing act being closely followed in Madrid .
Editor: Phillipe Schmidt-Araguin (Article created with AI assistance).