The CGPJ disciplines the controversial judge Peinado and opens the door to a possible disciplinary sanction: are there real possibilities of it happening?

This Monday, the Permanent Commission of the CGPJ agreed by a narrow majority - with the casting vote of the President of the CGPJ, Isabel Perelló - to send to the Promoter of Disciplinary Action Judge Peinado's order based on an alleged violation of art. 418.5 LOPJ, which sanctions "serious lack of consideration" towards members of the Judicial Police, among others. All this after, following the umpteenth controversial decision of the investigation, Peinado ordered the withdrawal of Begoña Gómez's passport due to the alleged risk of flight aided by her own escort (all of them national police officers).  

But this is not Peinado's first stumble; he has accumulated complaints and lawsuits throughout the two years of this process's investigation. From accusations of prospective investigation to a lawsuit for judicial prevarication by Pedro Sánchez himself, passing through an extensive list of corrections made by bodies such as the Provincial Court of Madrid or the Supreme Court. That Peinado's actions are notoriously irregular is doubted by no one with the slightest common sense, although many do not dare to say so publicly. But this week a surprising critical element has appeared: the police unions, normally in agreement with any judicial decision that could put the Government in a tight spot, have turned against Peinado for suggesting that national police officers could help Begoña Gómez in an eventual flight from the country.

On this occasion, the CGPJ considers that he could indeed have crossed the line of judicial independence, that aura of laissez faire that protects judges in practically all their actions. Not when he charged the Government Delegate in Madrid or the Rector of the Complutense University for "mere suppositions". Nor when he tried with Félix Bolaños after the grotesque interrogation in which a platform was built for him in La Moncloa. Only now that, in the final stretch of a peculiar investigation, an order of fire at will questions the commitment to legality of the National Police - which is no small matter - the CGPJ awakens from its permissive lethargy and makes a move against Peinado.

And so, what is the procedure to follow? A disciplinary proceeding within the Judiciary is a phenomenon, to say the least, extraordinary. After the approval of the Permanent Commission, it is up to the Promoter of Disciplinary Action to develop a kind of investigation into the case. To do this, the magistrate in charge, Ricardo González Conde Díez, may gather all the opportune information to issue a proposal back to the CGPJ, suggesting the archiving or sanctioning of Peinado. At this point, it must be clarified that the Promoter does not have sanctioning powers, which fall exclusively to the Disciplinary Commission of the CGPJ (and exceptionally to the Plenary only for the sanction of expulsion from the Judicial Career).

Once the Promoter's work is finished, if their report were favorable to disciplinary sanction, this Commission would be in charge of deliberating and imposing a sanction on Peinado. But how is a judge sanctioned? The answer is found in the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ), which compiles a gradual battery of sanctions ranging from a simple warning to the definitive separation from the Judicial Career. In this case, the maximum sanction is ruled out, since it is reserved only for cases of very serious offenses and extraordinary harm to the correct judicial function. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this disciplinary proceeding deals solely with Peinado's final order, so it cannot take into consideration as a basis for an eventual sanction all the irregularities of the instruction already mentioned.

The current Disciplinary Commission, whose mandate is five years and of which the President of the CGPJ is not a part, is dominated by members of the so-called conservative bloc. This leads many people to believe that a sanctioning resolution is unlikely, since members of this same ideological section already voted against its transfer to the Promoter in last Monday's Permanent Commission. If, extraordinarily, the instructor's conclusion were favorable to the sanction and, following his criterion, the Disciplinary Commission also opted to find a serious offense in Judge Peinado's order, the consequences would not be precisely bothersome for him. Except for the fine, of a maximum of 6,000 euros, all sanctions provided for in the LOPJ have a vocation for durability over time; and it must be remembered that Peinado is scheduled to retire next September, after exhausting the extension requested to investigate the case against Begoña Gómez. Therefore, in the improbable event that he were finally sanctioned, the consequences would be completely inoperative and would find an already retired Judge Peinado crowning his professional career with one of the most outlandish and questionable investigations in recent judicial history. One more line added to the infamous list of irregular judicial actions in form, substance, and intent.