A divided CGPJ opens the process to file a complaint against Judge Peinado

MadridThe General Council of the Judiciary has decided to open the process to open disciplinary proceedings against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who is investigating the Begoña Gómez case, for arguing that the bodyguards of the wife of the Spanish president, Pedro Sánchez, could help her flee. This justification, for which the magistrate decided to withdraw her passport as a precautionary measure, is the reason why the judicial body has decided to open disciplinary proceedings. According to explanations from the CGPJ, the judge's words may constitute a "serious lack of consideration," provided for in Article 418.5 of the organic law of the judiciary. Now there will be a promoter of the proceedings who, after various informative inquiries, will decide whether to definitively open disciplinary proceedings or issue a resolution of dismissal. Sources consulted from the CGPJ assure that there are other pending complaints against Peinado that could also be analyzed this same week.

What does this article of the organic law say? It considers as a serious offense the "excess or abuse of authority or serious lack of consideration towards citizens, institutions, secretaries, forensic doctors or the rest of the personnel at the service of the administration of justice, members of the public prosecutor's office, lawyers and solicitors, social graduates and judicial police officers." Serious offenses can be sanctioned with a fine of 500 to 6,000 euros.

However, the CGPJ's agreement was not reached unanimously, but by a narrow majority, as the casting vote of the president of the body and the Supreme Court, Isabel Perelló, was required. The rest of the members issued a dissenting vote against opening disciplinary proceedings against Peinado.

This Saturday, Judge Peinado sent Begoña Gómez to trial Peinado's Move

In parallel, while the CGPJ was meeting to reach this conclusion, Judge Peinado has made a new move and has summoned Gómez this Wednesday afternoon to hand over her passport, a summons that also coincides with the day the head of the executive will appear in Congress to explain the judicial cases affecting the PSOE.

This Saturday Peinado sent Begoña Gómez and her advisor, Cristina Álvarez, to trial and requested the withdrawal of their passports, a decision he justified by saying that Gómez's escorts, agents of the National Police, could help her flee. The precautionary measure, which had been requested by the popular prosecution led by the ultra entity Hazte Oír, and especially this justification, angered the police and part of the judiciary. In fact, this Sunday, the president of the CGPJ, Isabel Perelló, decided to convene the members extraordinarily to consider whether the argument used by Peinado motivated or not the opening of a disciplinary record against the judge.

After this emergency meeting, which was held remotely, this Monday from 9 a.m. the CGPJ has met (this time in person) to make a final decision.

A controversial justification

Both Peinado's decision and his reasoning have been widely criticized in various sectors. This Monday, the Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, commented in an interview on Cadena SER that the magistrate has made "totally incomprehensible decisions," and assured that the case against Gómez "is totally anomalous": "It should have been closed on the first day." Bolaños reaffirmed his confidence in the CGPJ to "make the appropriate decision" on whether or not to open proceedings against the judge in question, and expressed "concern" for the good name of the Spanish justice system.

In turn, the Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, conveyed to Isabel Perelló the "most forceful complaint" for questioning the work of police officers. The National Police also echoed this and demanded a "rectification" from the judge. "It is an absolute outrage to suggest that members of the National Police and, in particular, agents assigned to the security of the government presidency could collaborate in a hypothetical escape or in any action aimed at removing a person from the action of justice, whoever says it," criticized the majority union in a statement.