SENTENCE NUMBER 187/2013 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF MADRID CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE CHAMBER
FACTS FIRST.- The appellant filed an administrative contentious appeal by means of a document presented on March 16, 2012, against the aforementioned act, its admission was agreed upon, and once the requisite legal procedures were formalized, he was summoned to submit a lawsuit, which he did by means of a document in which, after alleging the facts and legal grounds he deemed pertinent, he concluded by praying for the appeal to be upheld, with the consequent annulment of the contested act, claiming his right to compatibility of his duties with the exercise of private teaching activities as a logistics and transportation instructor and as a safety advisor in the transportation of dangerous goods.
(…)
LEGAL GROUNDS FIRST.- Through this judicial appeal, the appellant, an active-duty civil guard, challenges the resolution of March 26, 2012, issued by the Deputy Director General of Human Resources and Inspection of the Ministry of the Interior by delegation of the Undersecretary of the Ministry of the Interior, which dismissed his request for compatibility of his duties with the exercise of teaching activities as a logistics and transportation instructor and as a safety advisor in the transportation of dangerous goods. SECOND.- The appellant, a Civil Guard stationed at the Traffic Detachment of Manacor as a traffic specialist in the motorcyclist modality, submitted a document on February 23, 2012, requesting the right to reconcile the exercise of his function in the Civil Guard with the private activity of teaching as a logistics and transportation instructor and as a safety advisor in the transportation of dangerous goods. He argues that he requests compatibility without prejudice to the strict fulfillment of his duties and without engaging in activities related to the Civil Guard. The lawsuit argues that he is a Civil Guard and requests compatibility with the exercise of the described private activity, referring to judgments of this Court that have recognized the same. He argues that he is not a Unit Chief, and that the specific complement he receives cannot be equated with a complement for special dedication, which he does not receive as such. He refers to the provisions of the regulations on compatibility, considering that the activity as a psychologist per se is not incompatible. There would be no overlap in schedules, and he believes there is no reason to deny the requested compatibility.
(…)
THIRD.- (…)
If we turn to the procedure, we will see that the applicant’s functions include prevention, reaction, and investigation services in case of criminal acts or violations of administrative legislation regarding traffic surveillance, traffic, and transportation on interurban public roads, which determines that the activity he intends to combine may compromise his impartiality since the recipients of his teaching work are potential recipients of his work as a civil guard, which may put him in a condition of partiality in his decisions that must be discarded beforehand by denying the requested compatibility.