The Unified Association of Civil Guards (AUGC) has celebrated in a press release the judicial victory in defense of the fundamental rights of the Corps' workers. The Fifth Territorial Military Court, in its recent ruling of December 12, has decided to acquit one of our members of two crimes of abandonment of residence, a crime classified in the Military Penal Code, thus dismantling the chain of command's attempt to criminalize a basic right.
The case dates back to June 2024. The Civil Guard officer, stationed in Tenerife, was on medical leave for trauma-related injuries. Due to a personal need to travel to the mainland, and after his administrative request for temporary change of residence was unfairly denied by the Colonel-in-Chief, the officer contacted the Legal Services of AUGC.
From the association, they argued that the right to freedom of movement is not lost due to illness, as long as recovery is not hindered and availability is met. Strictly following their instructions, the agent traveled but returned punctually to fulfill all his obligations: he submitted his sick notes in person and attended every medical appointment required by the Unit.
Despite his impeccable behavior, his superiors initiated a "witch hunt," filing a military report and requesting information from airlines to monitor his movements. The Military Prosecutor's Office even requested a sentence of three months in prison for each trip, totaling six months in jail, in addition to suspension from duty.
The Court's ruling, according to AUGC, "is devastating against the accusatory claims and assumes the defense's arguments for the association." The sentence establishes clear and forceful jurisprudence:
1. Sick leave is not a prison: The Court states verbatim that "medical leave does not necessarily have to mean confinement or lack of control for the sick person".
2. Compatibility of rights: It is reaffirmed that "the residency obligation is compatible with the right to move," provided that the civil guard is locatable and available for medical check-ups.
3. Fulfillment of duty: The Court emphasizes that the accused, following the advice received, "has been locatable at all times" and "has appeared on all occasions he has been summoned," making it "impossible to understand that the element of the crime consisting of absconding" unlawfully is present.
The association points out that "this case highlights an uncomfortable reality: the Civil Guard continues to try to apply the Military Penal Code to curtail basic civil rights, using the threat of prison for purely administrative or labor situations.""If our partner had not had the precise backing and guidance of AUGC's legal services, the outcome could have been a prison sentence and an indelible stain on his service record. Following the steps we indicated—maintaining his location, attending appointments, and personally submitting sick notes—was what differentiated a conviction from an acquittal," he continues.
From AUGC, "we send a clear message to our more than 25,000 members and to the entire collective: you are not alone in the face of abuse. This sentence demonstrates that, with the right advice, it is possible to curb the repressive inertia of an Administration that often forgets that, before being soldiers, we are citizens with rights."
"We will continue fighting in the courts and institutions so that no Civil Guard has to sit on the defendant's bench for exercising their freedom of movement," they conclude