Civil Guard Officer Acquitted in Tenerife After Controversial Sick Leave Case

SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE, 16 Dec. (EUROPA PRESS) – A Civil Guard officer has been found not guilty by the Fifth Military Territorial Court of two serious charges related to abandonment of residence while on sick leave. This ruling has sparked discussions about the implications of military law on civil rights and the treatment of personnel on medical leave.

Background of the Case

The legal proceedings began in June 2024, when the officer, who was stationed in Tenerife, found himself on sick leave due to traumatic injuries. During this period, he sought permission for a temporary change of residence, a request that was ultimately denied by his commanding Colonel. This denial set the stage for the subsequent legal challenges he would face.

Officer’s Adherence to Protocol

The Unified Association of Civil Guards (AUGC) has come forward to defend the officer, asserting that he did travel during his sick leave but always returned to fulfill his duties. The officer was diligent in submitting all necessary sick leave documentation and attended every medical appointment required by his unit. His commitment to his responsibilities was evident, as he made sure to remain compliant with the expectations set forth by his superiors.

Military Prosecution’s Approach

Despite the officer’s adherence to protocol, the military command escalated the situation by closely monitoring his travel activities through airline records. The Military Prosecutor’s Office took a hardline stance, seeking a three-month prison sentence for each trip taken, which could have resulted in a total of six months behind bars, in addition to a suspension from duty. This aggressive prosecution raised eyebrows and highlighted the potential overreach of military authority in matters concerning personal health and mobility.

Judicial Ruling and Its Significance

The court’s ruling, which was made public on Tuesday, provided a clear interpretation of the law regarding sick leave. It stated that being on sick leave does not equate to confinement or a prohibition on mobility. The court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a residence is compatible with the right to travel, provided that the officer remains reachable and available for medical evaluations. This ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for how sick leave is understood within the military context.

Moreover, the court highlighted that the accused officer was consistently locatable and attended all required appointments. This fact made it challenging to substantiate any criminal implications regarding his absence from his designated residence. The ruling reinforces the idea that personal health considerations should not be conflated with punitive measures.

Concerns Over Civil Rights

The AUGC has voiced strong concerns regarding the broader implications of this case. They argue that it reflects a troubling trend wherein the Civil Guard attempts to apply the Military Penal Code in ways that infringe upon fundamental civil rights. The association criticized the use of military law as a tool to impose restrictions on individuals in administrative or occupational matters, particularly when it comes to personal health and well-being.

This case raises important questions about the balance between military discipline and the rights of personnel, especially those who are dealing with medical issues. The AUGC’s stance suggests a need for a reevaluation of how military regulations intersect with civil liberties, particularly in the context of health-related absences.

Key points

• The Fifth Military Territorial Court acquitted a Civil Guard officer of abandonment of residence charges.
• The officer was on sick leave due to traumatic injuries when the incident occurred.
• His request for a temporary change of residence was denied by his commanding officer.
• The officer complied with all medical appointments and submitted necessary documentation.
• The Military Prosecutor’s Office sought a total of six months in prison for the officer.
• The court ruled that sick leave does not imply confinement and that travel is permissible under certain conditions.
• AUGC criticized the use of military law to infringe on civil rights.