Arona Man Loses €60k Suit Against Spain Over Justified Arrest
An Arona man's 60,000-euro lawsuit against the Spanish government for emotional harm during his arrest was rejected, with the court ruling his detention justified due to his defiant behaviour.
A man from Arona is suing the Spanish government, specifically the Ministry of Interior, for 60,000 euros. He claims he suffered emotional harm after two Civil Guard officers arrested him at his home. He accuses the officers of home invasion, document forgery, unlawful detention, torture, and minor injuries.
This case has been through a long legal battle. An Arona court first investigated the matter, and it was later heard by the Provincial Court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. That court found the officers guilty of home invasion but cleared them of the other accusations. The man, in turn, was cleared of assaulting an officer and causing injuries.
However, the officers appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then overturned the home invasion conviction, clearing the officers completely. As a result, no one involved in the incident was found guilty at that point.
But the man didn't give up. He appealed again, this time to a different court, the National High Court's administrative division. He wanted this court to decide if the officers' actions were illegal and something he shouldn't have had to tolerate.
This court's decision relies on what the Supreme Court had already said. The Supreme Court had ruled that the man's arrest was justified because of his "disrespectful and defiant behaviour" towards the officers. This incident began after he had caused trouble earlier in the shared areas of his apartment complex, where he is also the president.
The Civil Guard had been called to the scene. Officers tried to identify him, but he didn't have ID. So, they went with him to his apartment to get his identification. His wife started recording them, so the officers took her phone. They then arrested the man because he continued to behave defiantly.
The current court agrees with the Supreme Court's view, which stated that entering the apartment was only "brief" and necessary to take the camera and make the arrest.
Ultimately, the court rejected his claim for money against the government and ordered him to pay the legal costs.