The Court saves Marlaska and declares that the dismissal of Colonel Pérez de los Cobos was legal

The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National Court has reversed the decision of Judge Celestino Salgado who declared the dismissal of Colonel Diego Pérez de los Cobos illegal and has confirmed the legality of the dismissal of the Civil Guard command as head of the Command from Madrid

The court has upheld the appeal that the State Attorney filed on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior against the sentence handed down last March by the contentious-administrative judge, in which the dismissal of Pérez de los Cobos was declared illegal and ordered replace him in his post.

The appeal alleged that the removal of Pérez de los Cobos was due to a “loss of confidence” and that the decision of the Contentious-Administrative Court “eliminated” the possibility of dispensing with a freely appointed position in accordance with the “judgment of trust “established by the chain of command.

Pérez de los Cobos, a command of the Benemérita who has been key in the cause of the ‘procés’ and in the fight against ETA, was dismissed in a sudden manner on May 24, 2020 as head of the Madrid Civil Guard Command .

The cessation was decided by Grande-Marlaska after the colonel repeatedly refused to request from their political superiors to provide them with information on criminal procedure that Judge Carmen Rodríguez-Medel instructed on the celebration of the March 8 demonstration, Women’s Day, when the Covid-19 pandemic was already widespread.

The appeal that has been upheld maintained that Judge Salgado’s decision “contradicted the result of the test carried out.” “The plaintiff unilaterally changed his behavior for some reason,” he argued.

Resource

Interior alleged that Colonel Pérez de los Cobos informed the chain of command of inquiries into the 8-M investigation before his dismissal, without raising any complaint. Specifically, he gave an account of a videoconference with Judge Carmen Rodríguez-Medel to “accelerate the investigation”, of a conversation about the “extra caution” and about the way in which a series of subpoenas were being carried out.

“It is not true that the plaintiff reported ‘until the magistrate expressly ordered that no one but her be informed of the evolution and result of the investigations.’ Interior complained.

Against the background of the problem, that Minister Grande-Marlaska wanted to know a report that affected the Government delegate in Madrid and Fernando Simón in the course of a judicial investigation, Interior also denied his interest: “We are talking about information that already had It had been handed over to the parties involved in the procedure -among them, the government delegate- and had been disseminated in the media, “he said.

The judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Court had reached the conclusion that “the motivation for the proposed dismissal [por pérdida de confianza] It is not real or at least it does not conform to reality “, since Pérez de los Cobos informed his superiors of the proceedings that affected the Government delegate in Madrid” until the magistrate expressly ordered that no one be informed other than to her of the evolution and the results of the investigations. “The entire chain of command up to the general director of the Civil Guard” were aware that no details could be reported, “said Judge Salgado.

Pérez de los Cobos “reported what he should have reported and did not report what he did not know and could not and should not report. If he had known those details and communicated them would have committed a crime of revealing secrets“, indicated the magistrate.

The decision of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National Court it is actionable before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court.

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more

Leave a Reply