The ruling and its fallout

Judge Juan Carlos Peinado issued an 80-page order opening an oral trial against Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, along with her assistant Cristina Álvarez and businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés. The order accuses them of orchestrating a scheme to advance Gómez’s professional career by leveraging her marriage to the premier, including two master’s degrees and an extraordinary chair at the Complutense University, in exchange for favouring public contracts for Barrabés. As part of the ruling, Peinado imposed precautionary measures: Gómez must surrender her passport on Wednesday and report regularly to the court.

The judge justified the passport withdrawal, in part, by referencing cases of much greater gravity (the former minister Jaume Matas conviction, the Invercaria affair, a separate branch of the Andalusian ERE scandal) and even a drug‑trafficking case from two years ago in which he had imprisoned alleged cocaine smugglers. He argued that such restrictions are warranted to prevent flight risk.

The insinuation that ignited the dispute

The order contained a sentence that has drawn sharp condemnation: Peinado suggested that the police officers assigned to protect Begoña Gómez might collaborate in a hypothetical escape from Spain. Police unions reacted immediately, with Interior Minister Fernando Grande‑Marlaska transmitting his “most energetic complaint” to the head of the judiciary. The Permanent Commission of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) met on Monday and agreed to send the matter to the Promoter of Disciplinary Action for a possible serious offence of disrespect.

“It is an absolute nonsense. The assertion that the officers could participate or be complicit in a hypothetical flight crosses any logical limit.”

The CGPJ must act quickly if it intends to sanction Peinado, as the judge is due to retire in September 2026.

Government and political reactions

The government has aligned its criticism behind Torres, while Vox has refused to condemn the judge. Vox spokesman José Antonio Fúster called the CGPJ’s move “a real shame” and an “evident and illegitimate intrusion” into the powers of the Provincial Court of Madrid. He added: “There are corrupt police officers, that is evident. We saw it with the UDEF [former chief who hid €20 million in a wall].” Fúster also claimed that “some police officer may be obeying illegitimate orders.”

Torres, however, urged respect for the separation of powers and the presumption of innocence. “This persecution is intolerable,” he said. Xunta de Galicia president Alfonso Rueda called the police‑escape insinuation “unfortunate” but maintained that it does not undermine the “solid legal arguments” for opening an oral trial.

Judicial and public commentary

The case has drawn pointed remarks from legal commentators. Journalist Antonio Maestre noted that in the Plus Ultra inquiry, Judge Ismael Moreno recused himself merely for having a coffee with one of the defendants. “Mr Peinado should have been recused long ago,” Maestre said. “What cannot be allowed are the constant outrages. This man should be judged himself instead of judging others.”

Lawyer Miguel Ángel Campos questioned why the prosecution service has not yet filed a complaint for slander and libel against state forces. “The passport withdrawal is already absolutely unheard‑of, given her notoriety and roots,” he stated. He dismissed the CGPJ disciplinary route as going nowhere and asked: “What is the prosecution waiting for to file a complaint for slander and libel against the State security forces against Judge Peinado?”

“What cannot be allowed are the constant outrages. This man should be judged himself instead of judging others.”

What comes next

Begoña Gómez is summoned to present her passport on Wednesday 24 June. Separately, the CGPJ’s disciplinary promoter will examine whether Peinado’s words merit formal proceedings. Even if a sanction is imposed, its practical effect is limited by his upcoming retirement, but the judge also faces a possible private criminal complaint for slander from the affected officers or the prosecution service.