“We consider that you are the worst director of the sector of recent years.”
This phrase, pronounced by a civil guard at a meeting with a superior, is not covered by freedom of expression, according to the Supreme Court, which has confirmed the sanction that was imposed on the agent for a slight lack.
In a judgment issued this month of July, the High Court military room ratifies the sanction of three-day loss of features with sleeping suspension to infringe the disciplinary regime of the Civil Guard, which collects as a slight lack “the inconsideration or
Incorrection with the superiors in the exercise of the functions, on the occasion of them or wearing uniform “.
The meeting, which took place in 2018, was the semi-annual meeting of the head of the sector with the various professional associations of the Armed Institute.
Nine representatives went and, on behalf of the Unified Association of Civil Guards (AUGC), it did it on guard now sanctioned, who in his turn of the word said, “In a normal tone of voice,” as collected in the sentence: ”
We consider that you are the worst director of the sector of recent years. ”
The command replied that he gave him the same as his association to think of him and the next day he opened a disciplinary part.
In his appeal before the Supreme, the guard defended that his sentence should be considered protected in his right to freedom of expression, especially when he participated in the meeting representing his association.
But the high court ratifies that it is a slight lack and, in fact, points out that it has been “benevolently” sanctioned.
“The action of the appellant constitutes a palmaria inconsideration and lack of respect for any partner, and even more relevant, to a hierarchical superior,” the magistrates point.
The Organic Law that regulates the rights and duties of the Civil Guard, recalls by the Court, recognizes the right to freedom of expression of the agents, but requires that “in service matters or related to the institution” that right is subject to the
Limits that marks the discipline and duty of political and union and reserve neutrality.
The rules governing the body, is explained in the judgment, seek to prevent behaviors that damage discipline, cohesion and fellowship.
In the supreme opinion, the words of the sanction “are clearly offensive and humiliating by questioning the professional capacity” of a superior and, from the subjective point of view, sought to “undermine the consideration, good name and prestige”.
