A Madrid investigating judge ordered Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, to stand trial on charges of corruption between private individuals, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, and influence peddling, while also confiscating her passport, banning her from leaving Spain, and requiring her to appear in court twice a month [1][4]. Two co-defendants — Gómez's adviser Cristina Álvarez and businessman Juan Carlos Barrabés — face the same trial [4]. Gómez denies all wrongdoing and has filed an appeal against the travel restrictions [3][5].
Judge Juan Carlos Peinado justified the precautionary measures by citing a flight risk, writing that the police officers assigned to protect Gómez could themselves facilitate her departure: "No cabe duda de que esos agentes, en un momento determinado, bien por iniciativa propia o siguiendo órdenes de sus superiores jerárquicos, pueden ser precisamente quienes colaboren en la acción o acciones que se lleven a cabo para facilitarla" (There is no doubt that those officers, at a given moment, either on their own initiative or following orders from their hierarchical superiors, could be precisely the ones who collaborate in the action or actions carried out to facilitate it) [2]. He also noted that Sánchez's position as prime minister is transitory [2]. The full court order, including a proportionality test applied to the measures, was published by the Spanish outlet Demócrata [13].
The flight-risk rationale drew immediate opposition from multiple directions. Gómez's lawyer, Antonio Camacho, argued that his client lives in the heavily guarded Moncloa complex and is permanently surrounded by police escorts, making flight implausible [2]. José María de Pablo, lawyer for co-defendant Álvarez, noted the six-day gap between the trial order and the imposition of measures: "Había un riesgo de fuga tan elevado, que se ha tomado seis días para adoptar medidas cautelares" (The flight risk was so high that it took six days to impose precautionary measures) [2]. Police unions — SUP, UFP, CEP, and Jupol — called the judge's theory about officers facilitating escape an outrage [2]. National Court Judge José Luis Calama, who rejected similar measures against former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in a separate case, stated that a person of "pública notoriedad" (public notoriety) cannot easily become untraceable [2].
On the other side of the proportionality debate, Magistrate Manuel Ruiz de Lara, a spokesperson for the Civic Platform for Judicial Independence, stated that Gómez "tendría recursos económicos y logísticos para marcharse" (would have the economic and logistical resources to leave) and that passport confiscation and bi-monthly court appearances are appropriate given the seriousness of the charges [15].
The Spanish government and the ruling PSOE party framed the proceedings as politically motivated. Pedro Sánchez's Socialist PSOE party stated that Gómez "has been subjected to judicial and political persecution for two years" and called the ruling "another step in that process" [1][3]. Sources at La Moncloa, the seat of government, said the decision "Se constata la persecución, la obsesión y la desproporción de un juez que ha llevado a cabo una instrucción que carece de todo sentido jurídico y que sólo atiende a motivos políticos" (confirms the persecution, obsession, and disproportion of a judge whose instruction lacks all legal sense and serves only political motives) [2]. Justice Minister Félix Bolaños declared it "a dreadful day for those of us who believe in justice" [5]. Transport Minister Óscar Puente described the ruling as "la ignominia" (ignominy) [2]. PSOE President Cristina Narbona called it "demasiado odio, completamente injustificable" (too much hatred, completely unjustifiable) [2]. The German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk reported that the Spanish government described the proceedings as a politically motivated campaign [16], while The Guardian quoted the Socialist Party denouncing "prolonged judicial and political harassment" [7].
The Prosecutor's Office formally requested the case be closed, stating that the judge had forced a hypothesis and manufactured confusion to construct crimes where none exist. The prosecution argued: "Con independencia de consideraciones éticas o estéticas, de la conveniencia o inconveniencia de ciertas actuaciones, la mera relación conyugal de Begoña Gómez no puede operar [...] como influencia" (Regardless of ethical or aesthetic considerations, or the convenience or inconvenience of certain actions, the mere spousal relationship of Begoña Gómez cannot operate as influence) [2]. The complainant group Manos Limpias, which filed the original complaint that initiated the investigation, reportedly admitted its complaint relied solely on journalistic information that may have been false [10].
The case originated from complaints filed by Manos Limpias, described as a far-right-linked group, the ultra-Catholic association Hazte Oír, and the far-right party Vox [1][2][3]. DW and Japan Today both identified these organizations as the driving force behind the prosecution [1][3].
Separately, the European Public Prosecutor's Office found indications of embezzlement, influence peddling, and prevarication in EU-co-financed public contracts linked to recommendations by Gómez [12]. Judge Peinado also opened a new investigative line involving a Red.es contract awarded to a joint venture of Barrabés's company Innova Next and KPMG, adding possible charges of prevarication and fraud against EU financial interests [11].
The General Council of the Judiciary, Spain's judicial governing body, warned that government attacks on specific court decisions themselves undermine judicial independence and the rule of law [8]. The European Parliament's Committee on Petitions separately accepted citizen petitions alleging deterioration of the rule of law in Spain [9].
Gómez's appeal against the passport confiscation and travel ban is pending [5]. Prime Minister Sánchez has said the cases are part of a campaign to remove him from office and has refused to call early elections [3]. The oral trial date has not yet been set [4].