The Provincial Court of Madrid has overturned Judge Juan Carlos Peinado's decision to refer the 'Begoña case' to a jury trial, concluding that the judge acted without presenting adequate indications of a crime that would warrant moving forward. This ruling is seen as a partial victory for the defendants, including Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spain's Prime Minister, and others involved who challenged the judge’s initial decision. Their appeals were supported by the Public Prosecutor, suggesting a consensus on the lack of sufficient grounds to advance the case in its current form.

The court criticized Peinado for failing to make a minimum determination of the specific events or actions attributed to each of the defendants, nor did he provide clear reasoning or justifications for his decision to escalate the case to a jury. The reviewing court reminded Peinado of previous concerns raised regarding the split of the case, indicating that it was unacceptable to proceed without solid factual substantiation.

The implications of this ruling are significant, particularly concerning the ongoing scrutiny faced by public officials and their associates in Spain. It emphasizes the necessity for judges to base their decisions on clearly established evidence and outlines the procedural safeguards that protect individuals from potentially unwarranted legal actions. This development contributes to the broader conversation about legal accountability and transparency within the Spanish political landscape.