They suspend for 20 days of salary a civil guard for renting his room of the Ibiza barracks to tourists

PalmaThe Military Chamber of the Supreme Court has confirmed the sanction of 20 days of loss of pay with suspension of duties for a Civil Guard who rented out his room within the Can Sifre barracks, in Sant Josep de la Talaia, to a family of four tourists. The agent, who was not in Ibiza at that time, allowed the visitors to occupy the official unit he was assigned without having the corresponding authorization or communicating their entry to the facility's security service.

The ruling, issued on September 17, 2026, dismisses the appeal filed by the Civil Guard against the decision of the Central Military Tribunal, which had already upheld the sanction. The Supreme Court considers that the agent committed a serious offense by failing in a grave and manifest manner to fulfill an obligation inherent to his position and function. The events took place on October 12, 2023, during the feast day of the Patron Saint of the Civil Guard. Late in the afternoon, several agents stationed at the Sant Josep barracks observed the presence of a woman, a man, and two minors in the facilities. No one knew them, and they came from the room assigned to the sanctioned Civil Guard.

According to the proven facts recorded in the resolution, the man initially explained that he was in a friend's room, but one of the minors identified the holder of the unit. The man claimed he had been deceived, as he thought he was arriving at an apartment with sea views and they had rented him that room. During his stay, he even asked where he could get drugs inside the barracks, which prompted the intervention of a lieutenant and resulted in him being invited to leave the premises.

The woman accompanying him arrived shortly after and explained to the agents that the Civil Guard had left them the room. After having a phone conversation with him, the four visitors re-entered the unit and, later, abandoned the barracks without returning the keys to either the room or the facilities. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the fact that the agent had been assigned that room did not allow him to dispose of it freely. The resolution recalls that the right to occupy these premises is of an administrative nature and is subject to regulatory conditions, especially regarding the security of the barracks and the control of the entries and exits of people outside the corps.

The Supreme Court rules out that there was defenselessness

The agent had appealed the sanction alleging, among other issues, violations of the right to defense, the right to use evidence, and the right to effective judicial protection. He had also questioned why the statements of two people who had occupied the room had not been taken.

The Military Chamber rejects these arguments and considers that no material defenselessness occurred. In particular, it points out that the defense did not provide the necessary data to locate and summon the proposed witnesses, despite the instructor's requirements and the alternative dates offered to him. Furthermore, the court considers that the statements of these two individuals could not have modified the regulatory conditions of room occupancy nor the security obligations that the agent had to observe. In this way, the Supreme Court dismisses the cassation appeal and maintains in full the sanction of 20 days of loss of wages with suspension of functions.