Who was Bettino Craxi? The former Italian prime minister alluded to by Judge Peinado in the Begoña Gómez case

The criminal case against Begoña Gómez is currently in the phase following the opening of the oral trial, after the investigation has concluded. Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has decided to send it to trial for four alleged crimes and has ordered precautionary measures such as the withdrawal of the passport and the prohibition to leave Spain. The procedure has been channeled as a trial with a jury court, although this point is still under review by the Provincial Court of Madrid. The next legal steps involve the submission of prosecution and defense briefs, the possible decision of the Court on appeals, and, if applicable, the holding of the oral trial.

Current procedural status of the Begoña Gómez case

According to information gathered by the newspaper Demócrata, the judge of the Court of Instruction No. 41 of Madrid, Juan Carlos Peinado, has ordered the opening of the oral trial against Begoña Gómez for alleged crimes of influence peddling, business corruption, embezzlement, and misappropriation, dismissing the charge of professional intrusion. This indictment and the step to trial are described in Demócrata's piece on the instructor's order, where it is explained that the magistrate gives five days to the parties to express their views on the opening of the oral trial and to submit provisional conclusions (article on the indictment).

Subsequently, another order by Peinado formally agrees to open the oral trial and describes the case's transfer to the Provincial Court, as well as the referral to the Public Prosecutor's Office to submit its conclusions within ten days, a step recorded in this oral trial opening order. Demócrata emphasizes that no ordinary appeal is allowed against this order, without prejudice to what is provided in the Organic Law of the Jury Court.

In parallel, Demócrata's coverage of the case recalls that the Provincial Court of Madrid had initially rejected the change of procedure to a popular jury for considering it premature (February 2026 resolution), but the judge later insisted on maintaining the jury route (maintenance of the popular jury).

Precautionary measures and recent hearings

After the oral trial opening order, Peinado has agreed on significant precautionary measures. Demócrata details that the judge has ordered the withdrawal of Begoña Gómez's passport, the prohibition to leave Spain without judicial authorization, and the obligation to appear periodically in court, considering there is a risk of evading justice (summons to deliver the passport and announcement of appeal against the withdrawal).

Before that order, on June 15, a preliminary hearing was held at the Plaza de Castilla courts, the final step of the investigation in the popular jury model, in which the judge had to decide on the opening of the jury trial and possible precautionary measures (report on the preliminary hearing and judicial summons).

The decision to impose these measures has generated a strong political reaction. The minister and socialist leader Diana Morant described the precautionary measures as “absolutely disproportionate” and argued that the order evidences, in her view, the political nature of the case (statements by Diana Morant).

Appeals and control by the Provincial Court

The case is not closed procedurally because it remains subject to the control of the Provincial Court of Madrid. Demócrata has reported several key milestones:

• The Court has previously supported the judge's decision to continue investigating for embezzlement (December 2025 order).
• It also halted in February 2026 the premature referral to a popular jury, requiring stronger reasoning before changing the procedure (resolution on the popular jury).

Other press sources indicate that Gómez's defense and those of other defendants have filed appeals and complaints against the indictment order and the jury procedure; these appeals must be resolved by the Provincial Court, which could confirm the opening of the trial or limit the scope of the case (information on the appeals and general summary in encyclopedic entry).

Next procedural steps according to Spanish legislation

From the oral trial opening order, the Criminal Procedure Law and the Organic Law of the Jury Court foresee, in simplified form, these steps:

• Submission of prosecution briefs by the Public Prosecutor and private prosecutors, with the definitive legal qualification of the facts and the penalty request.
• Submission of the defense brief by Begoña Gómez and the other accused, requesting acquittal or an alternative qualification.
• Referral of the procedure to the trial body (in principle, a jury court in the Provincial Court of Madrid) for the preparation and scheduling of the oral trial.
• In parallel, resolution by the Court of pending appeals that may affect the validity of the indictment or the use of the popular jury.

Until a final judgment is issued, the presumption of innocence fully applies, as both journalistic analyses (for example, in this Demócrata analysis) and various political parties remind.

Other coverage and political-media context

The case has generated intense coverage in national and international media, including Infobae, laSexta, Newtral, The Objective, as well as audiovisual content on video platforms, YouTube (1), YouTube (2) and social networks (Facebook post). No further information is available in the consulted sources that modifies the described procedural framework.

The President of the Council of Ministers of Italy (equivalent to the head of government) is, according to the Italian Constitution, the body that directs the general policy of the Government and coordinates the activity of the ministers, under political responsibility before Parliament. His powers are divided between political leadership functions, internal organization of the Executive, and institutional responsibility before the Head of State and the Chambers. He is not a “strong chancellor” in the German style, but he is the center of impetus and coordination of the Government within a parliamentary system. The basis of his statute is mainly found in articles 92 to 96 of the Italian Constitution, especially article 95.

Appointment and institutional position

The President of the Council of Ministers is appointed by the President of the Republic. According to article 92 of the Italian Constitution, the Head of State:

• Appoints the President of the Council of Ministers.
• Appoints, on his proposal, the ministers.

After the appointment, the President of the Council and the ministers must take an oath and, above all, need to obtain the confidence of both Chambers (Chamber of Deputies and Senate), which configures the parliamentary nature of the system. The President of the Council thus stands as a central figure of the Executive but politically dependent on the parliamentary majority.

Direction of the general policy of the Government

Article 95 of the Constitution establishes that the President of the Council:

• Directs the general policy of the Government.
• Maintains the unity of political and administrative direction.
• Promotes and coordinates the activity of the ministers.

This means that he defines the broad lines of governmental action, sets priorities and orientations, and ensures that the different portfolios act coherently with the Government program. He does not act alone — Italy has a collegiate Government — but has the function of impetus, synthesis, and arbitration among ministers.

Internal coordination and organization of the Executive

Internally, the President of the Council of Ministers exercises several key functions:

• Calls and presides over the Council of Ministers, setting the agenda of meetings and managing debates among ministers.
• Coordinates the activity of the different ministries, avoiding overlaps and resolving conflicts of competence among them.
• Ensures the regular functioning of the State Administration, guaranteeing that administrative action responds to the approved political orientation.

Although each minister is responsible for their department, the President of the Council exercises a political supervision function, being able to request clarifications, redirect initiatives, or propose reorganizations to the President of the Republic (for example, in partial Government crises).

Relations with Parliament

The President of the Council is the main person responsible for the political relationship between the Government and Parliament. In particular:

• Presents the Government program before the Chambers and requests a vote of confidence at the beginning of the legislature or Government.
• Is politically accountable before the Chambers, which may propose motions of confidence or no confidence directed at him or the Government as a whole.
• Intervenes in parliamentary debates to defend the Executive's positions, explain legislative initiatives, and report.

If Parliament denies confidence, the President of the Council must present the resignation of his Government to the President of the Republic, which may lead to a new mandate or the dissolution of the Chambers.

Normative power and legislative function

Italy recognizes the Government a relevant role in normative production, which the President of the Council guides and coordinates:

• Promotes Government bills, which are deliberated in the Council of Ministers and then presented to the Chambers.
• Participates in the adoption of decree-laws and legislative decrees, which must be collegially deliberated by the Council of Ministers and signed by the President of the Republic.
• Countersigns acts of the President of the Republic related to the Government, assuming political responsibility for them, except in cases where the Constitution provides otherwise.

Thus, although the Constitution does not grant him a “monopoly” on legislative initiative, in practice the President of the Council is the main driver of the Government's normative production.

Responsibility and limits

The President of the Council, like the ministers, is accountable:

• Politically before Parliament, which can bring him down by withdrawing confidence.
• Legally, according to article 96, for crimes committed in the exercise of his functions, following special procedures involving Parliament's intervention.

His powers are also limited by the collegiate nature of the Government, the need for countersignature, and the guarantee function of the President of the Republic, who acts as an institutional arbitrator in Government crises or serious conflicts.

The withdrawal of the passport from a person under investigation in a criminal proceeding is a very specific legal matter, framed within the scope of criminal procedural law. With the information available in the sources I have access to for this response, there is no specific development regarding the legal and material requirements that a judge in Spain must meet to order this measure. For that reason, I cannot precisely detail the applicable provisions, jurisprudential standards, or differences depending on the type of procedure (for example, European arrest warrant or extradition) without risking unverified information. Below I clearly explain the scope of the information I can offer and the types of issues I specialize in.

Scope of specialization of this assistant

This assistant is specifically designed to provide information, analysis, and context on:

• Political and parliamentary activity in Spain: functioning of the Congress and Senate, law processing, legislative initiatives, votes, required majorities, and dynamics among different parliamentary groups.
• Executive power activity: agreements of the Council of Ministers, draft laws, public consultations and hearings, as well as development of state-level public policies.
• Political and social current affairs: political news, public debates, ongoing legislative reforms and their social impact, always with special attention to the Spanish context.
• Constitutional framework and State organization: distribution of powers between State and Autonomous Communities, constitutional reform procedures, types of laws and their approval requirements.

However, the question you raise is situated at a very technical level of concrete application of criminal procedural law by judges and courts (requirements to order a personal precautionary measure such as passport withdrawal, judicial motivation demands, proportionality parameters in an individual case, etc.). To answer it with the rigor it deserves, it would be necessary to rely on:

• The specific articles of the Criminal Procedure Law.
• Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and, if applicable, the Constitutional Court, on precautionary measures restricting fundamental rights linked to flight risk.
• Specialized doctrine (manuals and commentaries on criminal procedural law) that systematize these requirements.

This level of normative and jurisprudential detail is not included in the information I have available for this response, so I cannot reconstruct it without risking introducing errors or relevant gaps.

What I can provide usefully

Although I cannot enter into the technical detail of the applicable articles or specific judicial case law, I can indicate the type of approach normally analyzed at the political and institutional level when discussing measures such as passport withdrawal:

• It is a personal precautionary measure, adopted within the framework of a criminal proceeding and ordered by a judicial body, not autonomously by the administration.
• From a constitutional perspective, it connects with the right to freedom of movement and, in parliamentary or political debates, it is usually discussed in relation to the proportionality of restrictions imposed on suspects who have not yet been convicted.
• In the broader political and legislative debate, the need to ensure the presence of the suspect in the process (to prevent flight) is usually contrasted with the presumption of innocence and minimizing interference with fundamental rights before a final judgment.
• When procedural laws are reformed or changes to precautionary measures are proposed, the Courts discuss precisely the limits, guarantees, and judicial controls to avoid abuses or disproportionate decisions.

The above refers to the general institutional and political level, not the technical detail of what exactly a judge must prove in a specific case, how the motivation of the resolution must be drafted, or what specific appeals are available against that measure in the concrete criminal process.

What I can do if you want to continue working on this topic

Since my specialization focuses on politics, institutions, and the general regulatory framework, and not on individualized procedural legal advice, I cannot substitute consultation with:

• A criminal lawyer, who can analyze a specific case and the judicial orders involved.
• Official normative sources (Official State Gazette) to locate the exact articles regulating the measure.
• Available rulings and orders in jurisprudential databases to see how it is applied in practice.

If you wish, I can help you politically frame the issue (for example, what procedural reforms have been proposed regarding precautionary measures, which parliamentary groups have defended toughening or softening these instruments, or how it relates to European judicial cooperation and the European arrest warrant at the political and institutional level).