Members of the Commission Permanente del Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ) disagreed during a meeting in Madrid regarding the prosecution of Begoña Gómez.

The dispute highlights a deepening rift between Spain's executive branch and its judiciary, as the government alleges that legal proceedings are being used for political ends.

The disagreement centered on a court order, or auto, issued by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado. The order directs the prosecution of Gómez, a former labour minister, for four alleged crimes [1]. The decision has sparked a confrontation between the judicial body and the administration.

Justice Minister Félix Bolaños filed a complaint regarding the matter, which led the CGPJ to unanimously agree to expand proceedings against Judge Peinado [2]. This move follows a period of heightened tension over the independence of the judiciary and the propriety of the investigation into Gómez [3].

The Spanish government has closed ranks against the judge's order. Officials said the legal action was political persecution [2]. In response to these government criticisms of judges, the CGPJ approved an institutional declaration to defend the judiciary [3].

The conflict in Madrid underscores the friction surrounding the case, as the CGPJ expressed concern over the propriety of the investigation while the government said the charges were politically motivated [3]. The proceedings against Peinado now move forward as the council examines the circumstances of the auto that triggered the current crisis.

“The order directs the prosecution of Gómez, a former labour minister, for four alleged crimes.”

This clash represents a significant institutional crisis in Spain, where the boundary between judicial independence and political interference is being contested. By labeling the prosecution of Begoña Gómez as 'political persecution,' the government is challenging the impartiality of the court, while the CGPJ's institutional declaration suggests a need to shield judges from executive pressure.