The National High Court has rejected the request of a civil guard stationed in the province of Las Palmas who asked to be compensated with 98,000 euros , claiming he had suffered "damage that he was not legally obliged to bear," after being accused of a very serious offense of which he was later proven innocent.
The agent had a disciplinary file opened against him for allegedly having breached incompatibility rules and for failing to provide a service due to being on sick leave.
After being sanctioned, the plaintiff challenged the resolution before the Central Military Court, which ruled in his favor and ordered that he be paid the salaries he failed to receive plus interest, the corresponding compensation, and the cancellation of any reference to this case.
Subsequently, the injured party submitted a claim for patrimonial liability to the Ministry of the Interior for the aforementioned amount, of which 8,000 euros were for patrimonial damages and the rest for psychological and moral damages suffered.
The State dismissed the claim, considering that although it is true that he suffered damage that he was not legally obliged to bear, he had not proven that it was linked to the administrative action and that it had not already been compensated through the stipulated channels.
The civil guard appealed to the National High Court, which has now also rejected the request for compensation for expenses incurred in the judicial proceedings, pharmaceutical costs, and the carrying out of an expert assessment to demonstrate the psychiatric consequences he suffered.
None of these costs were covered by Social Security, to which any other costs related to the annulled sanction would also be added.
The State did not consider the claimed damages to be proven, and in particular, that the alleged psychological and moral injuries and sequelae were directly related to the imposed and subsequently annulled sanctions.
Legal costs would also not be indemnifiable as, in this type of proceeding, the intervention of a lawyer is not necessary and, in any case, the latter are subject to the regime of procedural costs and not to the patrimonial liability of the State.
Medical records indicate that the psychological condition predates the start of the disciplinary proceedings and therefore it was not proven that it originated from them, according to the ruling of the National High Court.
