New man of the Provincial Court of Madrid to judge Juan Carlos Peinado in his investigation into Begoña Gómez, wife of the President of the Government. The magistrates consider that the judge’s decision to file a complaint with the Presidency of Government about all the emails that Gómez sent and received from his official La Moncloa account since July 2018 until their news is not sufficiently motivated and does not respect “the principles of proportionality, necessity and opportunity”. The Audience censures the idea that Peinado adopted this measure, last September, through a provision, a sort of judicial resolution that does not require motivation, instead of using for this a case, which requires argumentation, for which the decision of the courts leaves the door open to which Peinado returns to complain to the letters that now use this route and argue his petition.
The director of Madrid’s Juzgado 41, who is investigating Gómez for her work as co-director of his own masters and extraordinary chair at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), complained about seven years of emails from the president’s wife after attributing professional misconduct related to the hiring of his advisor at La Moncloa, Cristina Álvarez, also indicted. The judge declared this approach in September, the request of Vox, which is presented as an accusation in the case, and then the Unidad de Tecnologías de la Información and the communications of the Presidency of the Government confirmed to the instructor that Gómez had corporate correspondence since Sánchez came to power.
But the defendants’ defense and the tax administration appealed the judge’s request, saying it was not motivated. According to Gómez’s lawyer, former minister Antonio Camacho, the “obvious” instructor on the ground “of any type of legal basis, which dispenses with the most important requirements that the legislator establishes as a means of guaranteeing compliance with the norm” of a measure that affects the secrecy of communications, a fundamental right recognized in article 18 of the Constitution. The hearing gave him reason to consider that Peinado’s resolution “does not mention any of the requirements required” by law to adopt such an invasive measure.
(Latest news. Expanded)
About The Author
