Judges Won’t Be Sanctioned for Insulting Politicians, Including Sánchez’s Wife
- Madrid – A disciplinary commission within Spain’s judiciary has decided not to sanction two judges for publicly critical remarks directed at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, his wife, and...
- The case centers on comments made by Manuel Ruiz de Lara, a judge at the Mercantile Court, and Eloy Velasco, a judge at the National Court.
- The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after complaints were filed, and a prosecutor initially recommended an investigation.
Madrid – A disciplinary commission within Spain’s judiciary has decided not to sanction two judges for publicly critical remarks directed at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, his wife, and other left-leaning politicians. The decision, reached on , underscores a deepening rift within the Spanish legal system and raises questions about the boundaries of judicial conduct in a politically charged environment.
The case centers on comments made by Manuel Ruiz de Lara, a judge at the Mercantile Court, and Eloy Velasco, a judge at the National Court. Ruiz de Lara repeatedly posted critical messages about Sánchez on social media, including referring to the Prime Minister’s wife, Begoña Gómez, as “Barbigoña” in a post from . Velasco, during a conference on , suggested that former Equality Minister Irene Montero, now a Member of the European Parliament, would “never learn” from her experience as a cashier at a supermarket.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after complaints were filed, and a prosecutor initially recommended an investigation. However, the conservative bloc within the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) ultimately voted against imposing any penalties. This outcome has drawn criticism from progressive members of the commission, who announced their intention to file a dissenting opinion.
The decision revolves around Article 418.5 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which outlines serious misconduct including a “lack of consideration towards institutions.” While the prosecutor argued that the judges’ comments constituted such a violation, the conservative majority on the commission disagreed. The potential penalty for a serious offense under this article ranges from 501 to 6,000 euros, but the commission did not propose a specific fine.
This is not the first time Ruiz de Lara has faced scrutiny for his online activity. A previous investigation, initiated by the CGPJ, was halted after the prosecutor recommended its closure. The commission was compelled to open the disciplinary file despite initial resistance, following a decision by progressive members and the commission’s president, Isabel Perelló, who cited the novelty of the case and the lack of established jurisprudence regarding judicial conduct on social media.
The case arrives at a sensitive time for Prime Minister Sánchez, who is already facing mounting pressure over corruption allegations involving members of his inner circle, including his wife and brother. Sánchez himself recently accused some judges of “doing politics”, a statement that further inflamed tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary.
The broader context of this dispute lies within a long-standing debate about the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. Laws relating to contempt of authority, as seen in countries with legal traditions rooted in Spanish and French law, have historically been used to protect public officials from criticism. However, as notes, these laws can be misused to stifle legitimate dissent and protect the reputations of those in power. The report highlights that such laws often punish truth as well as falsehood, and are designed to safeguard the dignity of office rather than address genuine defamation.
The decision not to sanction the judges has also drawn attention to the influence of political considerations within the judiciary. The conservative majority on the CGPJ, appointed during a period of political polarization, has been accused of shielding judges aligned with their ideology from accountability. This raises concerns about the impartiality of the judicial system and its ability to operate independently from political interference.
The situation in Spain echoes broader trends across Europe, where judicial independence is increasingly under threat. In several countries, governments have been accused of attempting to exert undue influence over the courts, undermining the rule of law and eroding public trust in the legal system.
Adding another layer of complexity, , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Sánchez of making a “genocidal threat” after Sánchez stated that “Spain, as you know, doesn’t have nuclear bombs, nor aircraft carriers, nor large oil reserves. We alone can’t stop the Israeli offensive.” This statement, made during a speech, highlighted Spain’s limited capacity to influence the conflict in Gaza and drew sharp criticism from Israel. While seemingly unrelated, this incident underscores the heightened political sensitivity surrounding Spain’s international positioning and the potential for diplomatic fallout from domestic controversies.
The outcome of this disciplinary case is likely to further exacerbate tensions between the government and the judiciary, and could have lasting implications for the independence and integrity of the Spanish legal system. The dissenting opinion expected from progressive members of the commission will likely fuel further debate and scrutiny of the decision, and may prompt calls for reforms to strengthen judicial accountability and protect freedom of expression.