The courts have become the refuge of the Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-MarlaskA, not to fulfill the salary comploration agreement of police and civil guards with the rest of the state police. In an attempt to delay matters still pending, he resorts to judicial tricks so as not to end up what was agreed in 2018.
Three are, today, the most flagrant breaches of the head of Interior: the re -entry of second activity agents to active duty; a External audit That he analyzes the salary difference between police and civil guards with Mossos and Ertzainas, for example; as well as him development of a remuneration law to avoid inequalities between the State Security Forces and Bodies. The first two are found in the courts and the third there are no signs that it occurs.
At this point it must be remembered that the PSOE and its government partners have repeatedly voted against salary equalization. Both Congress and the Senate have been Witnesses of the “contempt” of the Executive towards the agentswhose unions, at least three of them (CEP, Eya and Jupol), have already declared a collective conflict against interior. And it is that the socialists have not only Blocked up to 18 times the early retirement of police and civil guards and recognition as a risk profession, but have asked to urgently process the Citizen Security Law agreed with EH Bildu, which has so much discomfort and indignation has caused among the agents. Not to mention the report he delivered in the upper house denying that the risk profession exists.
To the bench per 100 million
In short, humiliation after humiliation, the Executive has been evading compliance with an agreement signed in 2018, with clear deficiencies. This is reflected in the 2023 National Court Judgment, in which renegotiate that salary comparison agreementespecially with regard to breastfeeding clauses. Specifically, the third, for which It should allocate 100 million euros for three years (in total 300 million) to encourage the re -entry of agents in second activity and reserve active duty. And the eighth, which includes the approval of a law to ensure that in the future there cannot be a salary dysfunction between police officers who perform the same functions and that would include assistance to judgments and overtime remunerated.
In 2022, the Central Court of Contentious-Administrative of Madrid admitted an appeal against interior for the breach of the third clause (the default of 100 million) and stressed that His “amount” was “indeterminate”. It also established that the demand would be processed by the rules of the “abbreviated procedure”. It should be noted that against this resolution, opposition appeal was filed, as happened.
Needless to say, Marlaska, behind the backs of the agents, The National Court Judgment appealed and refused to renegotiate with the police unions and professional associations of the Civil Guard the pending issues to fulfill the aforementioned agreement. To be exact, the State Advocacy carried the National Court’s ruling and argued that “incurred in violation of the legal system, internal incongruity and lack of motivation.” Moreover, in his opinion, “we are not facing concrete benefits” and “There is no legal term for the adoption of the measures of the Agreementwithout prejudice that it is not a legally enforceable agreement. “
And step further by ensuring that The third clause of that agreement is “manifestly illegal” and? The eighth is “contrary to the legal system”. For all these reasons, in its appeal they state that the Ministry of Interior, directed by Marlaska, “has more than fulfilled its obligations in terms of business, derived from the agreement (in its non -illegal part) it refers.”
Controversy with audits
Finally, the elaboration of an external audit that analyzes the salary differences with other state police such as the Mossos d’Esquadra and the Ertzaintza is pending. Remember that controversial was also the audits process for quantify the exact amount to meet the equalization. The Ministry directed Among interior, police unions and civil guard associations existing at that time.
A refusal that reached the courts, being the Central Court of Administrative Contentious who demanded, without success, the delivery of the file with all the minutes and reports of audits that Interior refuses to provide the agents. Just a year after the agreement, police unions and civil guards demanded to see those audits, but Marlaska just handed them a CD.
In that CD there was a section of “conclusions” where the consultant Ernest & Young said that “in her opinion, The aforementioned 807 million figure is insufficient to reach remuneration“However, in his second report this fact changed completely. In this second document, the external consultant assured that the 807 million agreed between the signatory parties of the agreement were” the total and absolute framework “of which the audit had to leave. Thus, certified that this amount was “correct” and “adjusted” to existing remuneration reality.
An explanation that did not convince the agents, who accused the minister of presenting an “letter audit.” The different unions and associations recriminated to interior the violation of their rights and wondered if there could be some type of “pressure” to the consultant to make a “custom” report. Thus, they decided to take legal actions, with the aim of finding out whether in the consultant’s report “professional criteria” were applied or if, on the contrary, there were “interference or pressures” that would have conditioned it.