He boasted about being a police officer when she walked into an ‘illegal’ party with friends in May 2020 during the covid confinement. As a consequence, the director of the Ávila Academy imposed a sanction: a deduction of 15 points from his final grades. That loss meant the forfeiture of all rights and prospects for advancing through the opposition process to join the police force. The Supreme Court ultimately confirmed the sanction, even though the applicant had the support of the Prosecutor’s Office in his appeal.
The Supreme Court also noted that the Constitutionalist Court found the state of alarm unconstitutional because the punishment was not academic for attending a party during quarantine; instead, it was based on the use of the Police cadet status without justification.
The decision, available to El Periódico de España from the Prensa Ibérica group, is dated the 16th and the speaker is Controversial Administrative Magistrate José Luis Requero. The events that occurred during the appellant’s distress include a birthday party with seventeen other people on 2 May 2020, coinciding with the first state of alarm declared by the government.
When the police arrived at the scene and asked those present to identify themselves, the applicant student presented his National Police School Student Card A, signaling his status.
This fact was evaluated as a serious offense under the Interim Regulations of the National Police School. Consequently, the Chief Commissioner and director of the National Police School permitted a deduction of 15 points from the total marks at the end of the course, proportionally reducing the corresponding portion of the overall score in each subject.
As a result, social skills and English language proficiency were suspended, leading to exclusion from the selection process and definitive withdrawal with the loss of all rights and expectations arising from advancing beyond the opposition stage.
The High Court of Justice of Madrid upheld the sanction, invoking the principle of legality in sanction matters. The court reasoned that the academy director’s decision fell within the framework of the Law on the Disciplinary Regime of the National Police Service, enacted in 2010, and the temporary sanctions regulations grounded in constitutional doctrine.
The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on whether the disciplinary regime regulation for student police officers within the Interim Regulation conformed to the principle of legality, as established by the pre-constitutional norm that preceded the current law.
In this context, the Court concluded that the regulation’s validity was not in question, as it is clearly supported by the foundational law. Article 2 states that trainee officers are subject to the disciplinary regime rules set forth in the regulations governing police training centers.