A high-profile decision by Spain’s Supreme Court has once again drawn attention to the issues of discipline and the reputation of state institutions. An incident that took place in the heart of a government complex has sparked discussion not only among law enforcement agencies but also within society at large. At the center of the story is a member of the Guardia Civil whose actions on duty called into question the standards of conduct within state institutions.
The court proceedings, which concluded in 2026, became a landmark case for the entire law enforcement system. For the first time, such an unusual incident received such significant attention from the Supreme Court, which may influence future approaches to similar cases.
Timeline of events
It all began on April 1, 2022, at the gymnasium of the La Moncloa complex, where a Guardia Civil officer was on duty in the afternoon. Before his shift started, he allowed himself a light snack and two glasses of beer in the local cafeteria. However, his alcohol consumption did not end there: at his workplace, he was joined by two colleagues, and together they drank a bottle of gin mixed with cola.
According to the case files, the officer not only failed to prevent the bringing in and consumption of alcohol in the service premises, but also actively participated in the process himself. A few hours later, towards evening, two more employees entered the gym, including the prime minister’s chief of security. By that time, the guardsman’s behavior was already raising concerns: he was showing clear signs of heavy intoxication.
Unusual behavior
In the presence of the chief of security, the Civil Guard officer suddenly dropped his trousers, exposed his buttocks, and began to dance, squatting as he did so. This episode, witnessed by several people, became a key part of the case. Later, the court noted that the guardsman’s actions were not only inappropriate but also offensive to those present.
Several months after the incident, a disciplinary sanction followed: 20 days suspension from duty and loss of pay. The decision stated that the officer’s behavior contradicted the principles of honor and dignity that the Civil Guard should uphold.
Arguments from both sides
The officer tried to challenge the punishment, arguing that his actions did not damage the reputation of the agency, as only representatives of law enforcement were witnesses. However, the court disagreed, stressing that not only guardsmen but also officers from the National Police were present, meaning the incident crossed the bounds of a single agency.
The Supreme Court also noted that the disciplinary measure was proportionate, taking into account the circumstances: the officer was on duty, violated internal regulations, and showed disrespect towards colleagues. In making its decision, the court considered both the guard’s positive characteristics and the absence of any previous disciplinary sanctions.
Consequences of the decision
The case attracted wide public attention as it raised questions about professional ethics and standards of conduct within government institutions. The Supreme Court’s decision may serve as a benchmark for future disciplinary proceedings related to violations of official ethics.
The judges emphasized that such actions, even if they occur in a private setting, can damage the reputation of the entire institution. In this case, the court found the punishment not only fair but also necessary to maintain public trust in law enforcement agencies.
