The General Council of the Judiciary is studying a reform of its regulations that would limit who can file complaints about possible disciplinary conduct of a judge. The proposal suggests restricting standing to those who are direct parties in the judicial procedure, so that only individuals involved in a case could approach the governing body of judges to report actions they consider irregular.
The change would mean excluding citizens, groups, and associations that are not part of the process, even if they have become aware of a public action by the magistrate and believe it may have disciplinary relevance. The reform would also exclude anonymous complaints and offensive writings, with the declared aim of organizing the channel for filing complaints and preventing abusive uses of the system.
What would change and what would not change
The reform would not prevent the CGPJ from acting ex officio when it becomes aware of facts with possible disciplinary relevance. That is to say, although a non-legitimized person could not formally initiate a complaint, the governing body of judges would retain the ability to open proceedings if it detects sufficient indications through other means.
It would also not change the nature of these complaints. A disciplinary complaint before the CGPJ does not serve to revoke a judgment, modify an order, or correct a specific judicial resolution. For that, there are ordinary and extraordinary procedural resources within each procedure. The disciplinary route is aimed at examining the professional conduct of the judge, not the legal content of their decisions.
The underlying debate: transparency or protection against campaigns
The proposal opens a delicate debate within the judicial body itself. Some members fear that limiting the filing of complaints could reduce transparency and hinder the ability for certain publicly known actions to reach the CGPJ through citizen or associative initiative. From that perspective, closing the door to non-involved groups could weaken a channel of control over behaviors that, although occurring in a specific procedure, have public impact.
Its defenders argue the opposite: that the reform would serve to prevent organized campaigns, unfounded mass complaints, or writings used as a pressure tool against specific judges. The objective, according to this view, would be to protect judicial independence from initiatives that do not seek to clarify real responsibilities, but rather to condition the actions of magistrates through external pressure.
The context of the Peinado case
The debate coincides with the investigations opened by several complaints against Juan Carlos Peinado, the judge overseeing the case regarding Begoña Gómez. That context adds political and judicial weight to a reform that, in principle, would have general scope, but arrives at a time of strong tension between the Judiciary, the Government, and the parties.
Complaints against judges in high-profile cases often generate a double reading. For some, they are a legitimate way to request explanations about actions that may affect rights or procedural guarantees. For others, they become instruments of political pressure when presented in a coordinated manner or by actors outside the procedure.
A proposal still not approved
The reform is not approved. Until its processing is completed, the current procedure remains in effect, which allows for complaints to be filed with a broader margin than that provided in the proposal. The internal debate in the CGPJ will have to determine whether to maintain that model or to introduce a formal restriction on who can activate the disciplinary route.
The decision will impact the relationship between citizens, associations, and the governing body of judges. Ultimately, the CGPJ must resolve how to balance two objectives that may come into tension: ensuring that there are channels to report relevant judicial conduct and preventing those channels from becoming a tool of wear or intimidation against magistrates handling sensitive matters.