The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has rejected Félix Bolaños' appeal against the decision to file the minister's complaint against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado for the interrogation to which he was subjected in the Begoña case. The decision has been adopted with the support of five members of the Permanent Commission; two others have announced a dissenting vote.
The Commission rejects the appeal against the filing of the complaint by the Promoter of Disciplinary Action, considering that the minister's protests referred to accessory issues of the judicial declaration. They were based, he says, on interpretations of procedural rules that may be debatable, but do not achieve disciplinary relevance and did not involve the violation of any of his rights as a witness. Although the interrogation took place in a climate of tension, there was no explicit disregard for Bolaños by Peinado.
Bolaños maintained in the now rejected appeal that both the treatment he received in his statement as a witness and the judge's decision to propose that the Supreme Court investigate him represented disciplinary infractions.
During the interrogation at the Moncloa Palace, the judge accused the minister of answering with "evasiveness" about the hiring of an advisor for Begoña Gómez. "I don't think I'm answering with evasions in any case," replied Bolaños, whom the judge also reproached for some gesture. "I don't know why you're smiling," he said, to which the witness responded: "Your Honor, I'm finding your questioning very surprising, that's why I'm smiling."
The Permanente indicates in its decision this Tuesday that both the way in which the declaration was carried out - the Promoter admitted the "dialectical tension" - and the elevation of the reasoned exposition were decisions adopted by Peinado in the exercise of his jurisdictional functions and therefore, they cannot be reviewed by the Council.
Bolaños also maintained that there was a lack of motivation in the decision to archive by the Promoter. Faced with this, the Permanent Commission points out that he "broadly" justified the lack of significance of the reported events.
The minister also protested the lack of speed in processing his complaints. The Permanente responds by reminding him that he himself successively expanded his written complaints - he presented a total of four - which forced him to request a new report from the magistrate on each occasion. It adds that the first proposal to file the complaints was revoked and the Promoter was ordered to delve deeper into them.
In relation to the protest over the "limited instructional activity" of the Promoter in this matter, the Permanente indicates that it exhausted the investigative procedures useful for clarifying the facts and that Bolaños does not indicate what other actions could provide relevant elements.
Finally, the Commission rejects that it has suffered defenselessness due to Peinado's refusal to tell it on what date it was notified that the Promoter had opened an information procedure regarding its actions. Bolaños maintains that the judge took him to the Supreme Court only after learning that he had been denounced. The Council responds to Bolaños that he had the possibility of appealing the magistrate's decision and of raising his challenge.
Same path to the rest
The Permanent Commission has learned of three other agreements of the Promoter of Disciplinary Action by which as many other informative proceedings initiated as a result of complaints filed against the same magistrate are archived.
One of them, presented for alleged leaks from the magistrate in the Begoña case, presented by one of the defenses, supposedly for reporting judicial resolutions to the media before being notified to the parties.
The Promoter concludes that there is no evidence to support the claim that the magistrate improperly communicated to third parties, or provided to the media, information subject to reserve or confidentiality - specifically, the order opening the oral trial - before officially making it known to the parties in person. On the contrary, the analysis of the facts shows that he acted in accordance with the Justice communication protocol.
Regarding another complaint, for alleged inconsideration of a lawyer, the Promoter believes that it was not an "objectively vexatious, offensive or inconsiderate" action, regardless of whether the lawyer felt uncomfortable.
