Police and defense lawyers challenge the court’s latest measures.
MADRID, Spain | June 2026
Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary has begun urgently examining complaints against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado after a controversial ruling involving Begoña Gómez, the wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The dispute centers on the judge’s decision to confiscate Gómez’s passport and prohibit her from leaving the country while suggesting that members of her police protection detail could assist a hypothetical escape. The National Police, the Interior Ministry and Gómez’s defense have all rejected different aspects of the ruling. The council met on Sunday but failed to reach an agreement and is expected to continue its discussions on Monday.
Peinado justified the precautionary measures by arguing that Gómez’s position as the prime minister’s wife and her access to official protection did not eliminate the possibility that she might flee. His order went further by suggesting that the officers assigned to protect her could potentially cooperate in such an attempt, either voluntarily or under instructions from senior officials. That reasoning transformed a judicial decision concerning one defendant into a wider institutional controversy. Police representatives interpreted the language as an unsupported attack on the integrity of the officers involved.
Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska sent a formal letter to the president of the judicial council, Isabel Perelló, expressing what he described as his strongest protest. He argued that the ruling unjustifiably questioned the professionalism of Spain’s security forces and asked the council to consider whether any response fell within its authority. The letter did not challenge the judge’s power to impose precautionary measures. It focused instead on the suggestion that police officers might participate in conduct intended to evade justice.
The National Police later issued its own statement defending the officers assigned to protection duties. The institution rejected any reasoning that placed their conduct under suspicion without evidence. It emphasized that police personnel operate under principles of political neutrality, impartiality and strict compliance with the law. Those obligations, the statement argued, exclude obedience to instructions that would violate the legal order.
Several police unions also condemned the judge’s wording. Jupol, the Unified Police Union, the Federal Police Union and the Spanish Police Confederation defended the honor and professional record of the agents. Some organizations demanded a public correction, describing the suggestion of possible collaboration in an escape as unacceptable. Their reaction demonstrated that the controversy had expanded beyond the specific officers assigned to Gómez.
The dispute places the General Council of the Judiciary in a delicate institutional position. The council is responsible for governing the judiciary and protecting judicial independence, but it must also consider complaints concerning the conduct or language of judges. It cannot simply revise a judicial decision because one institution disagrees with its reasoning. Its role is instead to determine whether the complaints raise disciplinary, procedural or institutional issues that require action.
The council’s inability to reach an immediate agreement reflects that complexity. Any intervention perceived as political could reinforce accusations that the government is attempting to pressure a judge handling a case involving the prime minister’s wife. A refusal to respond could also be interpreted as acceptance of unsupported suspicions directed at police officers. The council must therefore distinguish carefully between judicial independence and the responsibility to maintain institutional confidence.
Gómez’s defense has presented a separate complaint based on alleged violations of her procedural rights. Her attorney, Antonio Camacho, says the defense learned through news reports that the judge had opened an oral trial and imposed precautionary measures. According to the complaint, decisions of that importance should have been formally communicated to the parties without delay. The lawyer argues that the sequence may have affected Gómez’s right to an effective defense and judicial protection.
That accusation focuses less on the substance of the passport restriction than on the way the decision was transmitted. Formal notification allows defense lawyers to study a ruling, prepare appeals and advise their client before the information becomes public. Learning of a major procedural development through the media can place the defense at an immediate disadvantage. It can also create the perception that public disclosure was prioritized over legal procedure.
The combination of complaints creates two distinct lines of scrutiny. The police and Interior Ministry are challenging language they believe damages the credibility of the security forces. Gómez’s defense is questioning whether the court respected procedural guarantees. The judicial council must evaluate both without interfering improperly in a case that remains politically sensitive.
Peinado’s investigation has already become one of the most contentious legal proceedings in Spain. Gómez has faced scrutiny over alleged influence, business relationships and activities connected to projects developed through academic and private institutions. The case has generated intense political debate because it involves the prime minister’s immediate family. Government critics describe the investigation as necessary accountability, while Sánchez’s allies have repeatedly questioned its direction and proportionality.
The latest ruling has intensified that conflict by extending suspicion toward state institutions not accused of wrongdoing. Precautionary measures normally depend on factors such as the seriousness of the alleged offenses, personal circumstances and the risk of flight. Judges possess broad discretion, but their reasoning must remain connected to specific and credible risks. Critics argue that introducing speculative police cooperation weakened the legal justification and created unnecessary institutional damage.
The controversy also tests the boundaries between legitimate criticism and pressure on the judiciary. Judges must be free to issue unpopular decisions without fearing political retaliation. At the same time, their rulings are subject to appeal, public examination and disciplinary procedures when appropriate. Democratic institutions depend on both judicial independence and accountability, not on treating either principle as absolute.
For the National Police, the reputational issue is especially important. Protection officers operate near senior political figures while remaining legally subordinate to professional command structures rather than partisan interests. Suggesting that they might help a protected person escape implies a breakdown of neutrality at the highest level. Police leaders fear that such speculation could weaken public confidence in an institution expected to enforce court orders impartially.
The judicial council’s next meeting may clarify whether it opens a formal review, requests additional information or limits itself to an institutional response. Its decision will not resolve the underlying criminal case against Gómez. It will determine how Spain’s judicial governing body handles complaints involving a judge, the national police and the family of the head of government. That task requires protecting independence without ignoring the consequences of judicial language.
The dispute shows how a single passage in a court order can generate a conflict across several branches of the state. Peinado intended to explain why Gómez’s official status did not remove the risk of flight. His reference to possible police assistance instead created a broader debate about evidence, professionalism and procedural fairness. The council must now decide whether the line between judicial reasoning and institutional speculation was crossed.
Institutions remain strong when scrutiny respects the law. / Las instituciones permanecen fuertes cuando el escrutinio respeta la ley.