A court ruling on a stalking case in the Spanish police has once again drawn attention to employee safety and protection abroad. Judge Francisco de Jorge of the Audiencia Nacional refused to lift a restraining order on police commander Emilio de la Calle, who is accused of stalking and harassing a subordinate at the Spanish embassy in India. This case has become a benchmark for the entire system, highlighting how Spanish courts respond to such allegations and what consequences those involved may face even after lengthy compliance with restraining measures.
According to El Pais, Emilio de la Calle sought to lift the restrictions, arguing that he had strictly followed all court orders for a year and no longer lived near the victim. However, both the prosecutor and the subordinate’s lawyer insisted that physical distance alone does not eliminate the risk, especially given today’s digital communication tools. The court sided with them, noting that the risk to the victim remains and the seriousness of the charges requires ongoing protective measures.
Arguments from both sides
The case files state that the restraining order was imposed after the court in April 2025 prohibited de la Calle from any contact with the subordinate, including work-related matters. Later, this was extended to a 500-meter no-approach zone around the victim’s residence and workplace, both in India and Spain. The commander’s defense argued that the risk had dissipated since he had changed his place of residence and had complied fully with all the regulations. However, prosecutor Concepción Nicolás emphasized that complying with court rulings is not a merit but an obligation, and that no new circumstances had arisen.
The victim’s lawyer, Juan Antonio Frago, pointed out to the court that modern technology allows an offender to exert pressure regardless of physical distance. The court agreed, noting that the nature and gravity of the charges require ongoing restrictions. The judge’s decision notes that the evidence in the case is already sufficient, and additional witness questioning requested by the defense would only delay the proceedings and not add clarity.
Rejected motions
The court also refused to call additional witnesses proposed by de la Calle’s defense. Among them were two police officers and a foundation employee from Kolkata. The judge ruled that their testimony would not help clarify the circumstances of the case, and that summoning a witness from India would only delay the proceedings. Furthermore, the court noted that even if nothing unusual occurred in the presence of these individuals, this does not rule out other instances of improper conduct.
The Spanish Ministry of the Interior suspended Emilio de la Calle from duty and pay back in March last year, after the victim returned to Madrid to give testimony. According to El Pais, the decision for temporary suspension came nearly two months after the international cooperation unit received information about the complaints and the psychological support provided to the staff member.
Context and implications
The de la Calle case has become one of the most talked-about in Spanish police circles in recent years. The charges include harassment, threats, sexual harassment, and invasion of a colleague’s privacy. El Pais reports that the commander used his position to pressure and control, demanded constant availability, and interfered in the subordinate’s personal affairs. Case files contain audio recordings in which insults and threats are documented.
Court practice in Spain for similar cases is becoming increasingly strict. In recent years, courts have more often denied requests to ease restraining measures when there is a risk for victims. For example, a high-profile hearing in Madrid was recently postponed due to the lack of legal representation for one party, sparking further debate about the effectiveness of judicial procedures — you can read more about this in the article about the postponement of the Heredjón case hearing.
In recent years, there has been a rise in cases in Spain where public sector employees face accusations of harassment and workplace misconduct. In 2025, several high-profile cases in the police and ministries led to tighter internal controls and a review of complaint response protocols. As a result, courts have increasingly enforced protective measures, including restraining orders and temporary suspensions from positions. These changes reflect growing public concern for safety and respect for employees’ rights, especially in international missions and diplomatic representations.
