Spain's judicial council backs judge Peinado in dispute with minister

Spain's General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has sided with judge Juan Carlos Peinado against Minister Félix Bolaños. In a decision published on Monday, the judicial governing body rejected Bolaños' appeal against the dismissal of his complaint regarding the treatment he received during a judicial statement. Four complaint filings submitted between June and October 2025 failed to change the CGPJ's stance.

What happened

The CGPJ, through its Standing Committee, ruled on 22 September to reject the appeal filed by Minister Félix Bolaños against the dismissal of his complaint against judge Juan Carlos Peinado [h1]. The decision followed an analysis of the minister's arguments, which claimed that the treatment received during a judicial statement and the subsequent reasoned report constituted disciplinary offences. However, the judicial governing body concluded that Peinado's decisions fell within the exercise of his jurisdictional functions and procedural direction [h2].

The CGPJ acknowledged that Bolaños' statement as a witness before Peinado took place in a "climate of dialectical tension," but denied that there were "explicit discourtesies to the declarant" [h3]. Furthermore, the body considered that the minister's complaints referred to "accessory matters of the judicial statement" with no disciplinary relevance or violation of the witness's rights [h4]. The Standing Committee also dismissed Bolaños' allegation of "lack of agility in processing," noting that the minister filed four complaint documents between 4 June and 3 October 2025, which delayed the decision [h5].

The CGPJ also rejected Bolaños' claim regarding the lack of motivation in the dismissal, pointing out that the agreement contained extensive justification for the lack of significance of the reported facts. The decision was described by some media as a setback for the minister, as the Standing Committee became aware of the complaint's dismissal on 28 July 2026.

Why it matters

The CGPJ's ruling reinforces the independence of the judiciary from the executive in Spain, a constitutional principle that has been debated in recent years. By upholding Peinado's decisions, the judicial governing body underscores that jurisdictional functions and procedural direction are protected against potential political or media pressures. This decision comes at a time when judge Peinado, a key figure in the Begoña Gómez case, retired on 27 September 2026, days after sending the wife of the Prime Minister to trial [h11, h12].

The case also reflects the tension between the two branches of power, especially in high-profile cases where judicial statements generate controversy. The CGPJ considered that the proceedings carried out by the Promoter of Disciplinary Action had exhausted the useful possibilities for investigating the facts, definitively closing the disciplinary route against Peinado. However, his imminent retirement limits the practical impact of the resolution, although it keeps alive the discussion on the limits between the exercise of judicial functions and complaints from declarants.

What the parties say

Félix Bolaños, Minister of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts, stated that both the treatment he received and the reasoned report constituted disciplinary offences. His position focused on the perception of inadequate treatment during his statement as a witness, an argument the CGPJ did not share.

For its part, the CGPJ, through its Standing Committee, declared that the complaints referred to accessory matters of the judicial statement that did not reach disciplinary relevance. Additionally, the body recalled that both the manner in which the statement was conducted and the elevation of the reasoned report are decisions adopted in the exercise of jurisdictional functions.

Two CGPJ councillors, Argelia Queralt and Bernardo Fernández, announced their dissenting votes against the decision to reject Bolaños' appeal [h10]. Although the content of their arguments was not detailed, their stance reflects internal division in a body that has traditionally been criticised for its politicisation.