The agent made both jobs compatible without having any authorization from the Benemérita


The Supreme Court has endorsed suspending a civil guard from employment for five months for having combined his activity in the Benemérita as a lieutenant at the Barcelona – El Prat Airport with a job as a pilot for a private airline without having authorization to do so or having requested compatibility.

The magistrates of the Military Chamber have concluded that the agent, having been working for the airline while serving on active duty in the Civil Guard and without previously requesting and obtaining authorization, violated the regulations on incompatibilities and committed a “disciplinary offense very serious”.

In a sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, it is stated that in April 2020 – upon returning from a leave of absence – the man had an employment relationship with a private airline in which he worked as an “aircraft pilot “. According to the resolution, the agent provided his services until August of that year and made national and international trips from the same airport where he was stationed in Barcelona: to Ibiza, La Coruña, Mahón, Paris (France) and Milan. (Italy). In his work history report, his registration with the airline and the unemployment benefits received appear.

For this action, in June 2021 the Director General of the Civil Guard imposed a five-month suspension of employment as the author of a “very serious” offense, for carrying out an activity that violated the rules on incompatibilities. In October of that same year, the Ministry of Defense confirmed the sanction imposed. The agent, dissatisfied with the decision, took his case before the Central Military Court, which in June 2022 dismissed his appeal.

Thus, the agent went to the Supreme Court with an appeal in which he argued that working as a pilot for an airline –without having obtained prior authorization– was not an activity that was listed in the regulations as “incompatible” with his I work at the Benemérita. And he insisted that he was granted compatibility once he requested it.

The magistrates have recalled that the Law on Incompatibilities of Personnel at the Service of Public Administrations “expressly provides” that the civil guards cannot “make their activities compatible” with a second private job “that could prevent or undermine strict compliance of their duties or compromise their impartiality or independence, as well as their full availability for service”.

In addition, they have stressed that the Royal Decree that contemplates the incompatibilities of the Civil Guard personnel also specifies that in order to obtain recognition of compatibility it is necessary that they have submitted an application that must be evaluated by the General Directorate of the Armed Institute and resolved by the Ministry of the Interior.

On the other hand, the high court has indicated that the fact that the agent requested the compatibility permit and it was granted when he was already performing these functions for the private company “does not imply” that when regularizing his situation the previous conduct was not ” recriminable”.

The magistrates have insisted that “not having requested compatibility prior to the exercise of the activity that he had been carrying out implied, in itself, a breach of the aforementioned regulations”, because he was working as a private pilot when he carried out functions of the Guard Civilian without any authorization.

In 33 pages, the court has emphasized that the sanction imposed was “adequate” when taking into account the “seriousness” and the “circumstances of the conduct” of the agent; and he recalled that for this type of case the law provides for the possibility of sanctioning with suspension of employment from three months to six years. “This Chamber considers that since the sanction has been imposed almost in its minimum extension, it cannot be considered that the principle of proportionality has been violated,” the magistrates have indicated.

On the sidelines, the Supreme Court has made ugly the agent who presented an “almost literal” appeal to the one that he presented before the Central Military Court, without presenting any legal reasoning that would allow him to argue that the principle of legality was violated with the contested decision, something that -a their judgment — should in itself lead them to dismiss your petition.