Police Officer's Racist Insult Dismissal on Hold After 5 Years of Court Rulings

A police officer's dismissal for using racist insults against a colleague remains on hold more than five years after the incident, following court rulings that found the proposed sanction disproportionate and insufficiently justified.

The episode unfolded on 30 October 2020 in the garage of the police headquarters, when one officer insulted another with phrases including "moro de mierda" (shitty Moor), "negro" (black), and "vete a Melilla con tus amigos moros" (go to Melilla with your Moor friends), while making a throat-slitting gesture and threatening to kill him. The officer was detained that day.

Criminal courts convicted the agent of discrimination based on origin and threats, imposing an 18-month suspended prison sentence. The ruling became final nearly three years later. Separately, the Interior Ministry opened a disciplinary file on 3 November 2020 but suspended it pending the criminal case, as required by procedure.

In April 2024, once the judicial process ended, the government resumed the administrative track. Citing the Police Law, it classified the conduct as a very serious offence under article 97—"any conduct constituting a crime"—and ordered dismissal plus a six-month ban from general administration roles.

The officer challenged the decision in the Batllia court, which annulled it as disproportionate and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights' proportionality principle and established case law from the European Court of Human Rights. The government appealed to the Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court, which in a September ruling partly upheld the appeal. It confirmed the sanction's annulment due to inadequate justification but stressed that courts cannot substitute for the administration's sanctioning powers. The government must reassess the facts, circumstances, and the criminal penalty already imposed before deciding on any measure. No sanction can be ruled out upfront.

The chamber criticised the original resolution for failing to analyse whether the behaviour undermined the officer's suitability as a public servant, police values of exemplarity, integrity, and respect, or the force's image. It also noted the lack of consideration for the criminal court's findings on context and penalty.

Throughout the criminal proceedings, the convicted officer argued the insults arose from typical banter between colleagues, exchanged both ways. The victim acknowledged the usual dynamic but said the incident crossed a line, prompting the complaint. Prosecutors had sought disqualification, but the sentence did not include it.

The officer continues in his duties while the government re-evaluates.