Supreme court dismisses Sánchez's complaints against judge Peinado

The Supreme Court has dismissed three complaints filed by the political parties Voz, Hazte Oír, and Iustitia Europa against Pedro Sánchez for allegations of prevarication and misappropriation. This decision stems from Sánchez's use of the State Attorney's Office to file a complaint last July against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who is investigating Begoña Gómez for alleged influence peddling. The judge had previously summoned Sánchez as a witness at the Palace of Moncloa. According to the Criminal Chamber, there are no indications of criminal activity in the reported actions.

The complaints not only targeted the Prime Minister but also included Justice Minister Félix Bolaños and the State Attorney General, David Vilas. The complainants argued that the use of the State Attorney's Office for this legal action constituted an arbitrary administrative decision, taken with knowledge of its injustice (prevarication) and utilizing public resources for private ends (misappropriation).

However, the Supreme Court clarified that filing a complaint cannot constitute a crime of prevarication, thus excluding any consideration of the rigor, viability, or strength of the arguments behind Sánchez's complaint. It also refrained from judging the correctness of the judicial actions that were the subject of Sánchez's complaint, or the appropriateness of his serious decision to file against a investigating judge based on an ongoing procedure.

The Court noted that while the initiative taken by the Prime Minister seemed "extravagant" to the Madrid High Court of Justice, this perception, though not without merit due to its unprecedented nature, does not affect the legal assessment of the complaints. The focus, the Supreme Court emphasized, is on evaluating the reasonableness of the arguments supporting the State Attorney's Office's involvement in this legal matter.

After reviewing their jurisprudence concerning the crime of prevarication, the Chamber concluded that although the decision in question might be legally debatable, it is not "grotesquely illegal" or made with disregard for the law. The Court stated that the administrative basis for this decision "cannot be clearly deemed contrary to the legal framework," thus dismissing the charge of misappropriation.

The judges acknowledged that one might question the potential impact on the reputation of such a significant institution as the Presidency of the Government, particularly due to the judge's decision to summon Sánchez as a witness. This concern was cited by the State Attorney's Office in its defense of Sánchez against Peinado's investigation. Indeed, the Madrid High Court previously rejected Sánchez's complaint against the instructor of the "Begoña Gómez case."

Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that the approach taken cannot be considered arbitrary or utterly irrational. Defending the highest executive authority against what was deemed—according to the inadmissibility order—an unfounded infringement on the conditions and guarantees surrounding its status by a member of another state power is a legitimate stance.