Juana Rivas, a resident of Maracena in Granada, faced a 2016 conviction for kidnapping her two children after taking them from Italy without parental consent. She was later pardoned by the government. The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) continued disciplinary action against judge Manuel Piñar, who had sentenced Rivas to five years in prison and reportedly engaged in provocative demonstrations toward colleagues, various authorities, and groups described as having a racist hue by several organizations.
On the 14th, the Disciplinary Action Support Office sent notifications and, after appropriate steps, executed an agreement that would be communicated to the judge in due course.
Defending Rivas, attorney Carlos Aranguez pointed to statements made by Piñar on social media. If he identifies himself by his full name on Facebook, this could violate section 395 of the Judicial Branch Act (LOPJ), which prohibits judges and magistrates from sending congratulations or condemnations to authorities, public officials, or official bodies for their actions.
Chairman of the Supreme Court
Piñar presents himself on Facebook as the “President of the Judiciary” and, in his profile, expresses views that Juana Rivas’s legal representatives describe as insulting toward multiple groups. These remarks were summarized in a 23-page report to the disciplinary board, claiming that Piñar defends opinions as long as they are not officially derogatory and that the dignity expected of those who dispense justice was not upheld.
He has made disrespectful remarks toward members of certain religious and ethnic groups by including Pope Francis in a report about people who prefer pets to having children, and he has used terms that have been interpreted as contempt toward media outlets, immigrants, or minority communities, sometimes employing terms such as “Moro” or “black.”
Manuel Piñar’s Facebook account also shows posts criticizing unions and trade unionists, described as “the worst thing this country has,” as well as criticisms of left parties and politicians tied to tax policy and references to EU decisions on taxation of goods abroad. The defender notes Piñar’s use of language seen as critical of policies related to equality and gender-based violence. The term “feminazi” has appeared in discussions he conducted, along with remarks directed at other magistrates, judges, or prosecutors.
On the other side, the defense argued that the Supreme Court of Andalusia (TSJA) recently rejected Juana Rivas’s complaint alleging corporate abuse by this judge who presides over the High Criminal Court in Grenada. The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the magistrate alleging moral offenses and abuse of rights during the execution of sentences. The Chamber found no evidence of either offense and decided against imposing a 5,000 euro fine sought by the Public Prosecutor for abuse of rights.
In subsequent appeals, the defense emphasized that the investigation raised questions about potential perjury and bias that could impact the case. They argued that a pattern of behavior and the procedure’s progression could reveal offenses of perjury or abuse of rights. The case was marked by surprising statements captured on tapes, including remarks attributed to the judge about one of Rivas’s children, which attracted attention from the Prosecutor’s Office. The court ultimately dismissed those concerns as the matter progressed.
Throughout the process, observers noted that the discourse around the case touched on delicate issues of family law, gender equality, judicial responsibility, and the limits of public expression by members of the judiciary. The evolving narrative underscored the tension between upholding formal rules on conduct and the broader public concern about fairness and accountability in relevant legal proceedings.
In summary, the matter centers on the balance between the professional duties of high-ranking judges and the scrutiny that accompanies public statements made on social networks. It also highlights ongoing debates about how judicial figures should engage with the public while maintaining the standards expected of those who administer justice in Spain. The parties involved continue to await further clarifications and rulings as the disciplinary process advances and the broader implications for judicial conduct remain in the spotlight.