The Supreme Court ruling that the Generalitat discriminated against the Police and the Civil Guard in vaccination

The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has ruled this Friday that the Generalitat’s vaccination plan was “discriminatory“for the members of the National Police and the Civil Guard in Catalonia.

The sentence, consulted by Europa Press, estimate the resource presented by the Association of the Civil Guard, Civil Justice (Jucil) and Police Justice (Jupol) against the Ministry of Health.

In April, the police unions presented an appeal stating that in the vaccination process, managed by the autonomous communities, “has not been vaccinated in Catalonia a National Police or Civil Guard, except for those who, in addition to being active or in reserve, were between 60 and 65 years old “.

The thesis of the prosecution

For its part, the Office of the Prosecutor defended that “the State security forces and bodies have been unjustifiably excluded of the application of said preferential vaccination plan, and relegated to the common vaccination system, “for which he argued that their right to equality and non-discrimination had been violated.

On the other hand, the Generalitat denied discrimination and assured that “it was events beyond its control that caused the vaccination to take place at the rate that is expressed”, such as the difficulty in communicating the data and the stoppage at the time to vaccinate with AstraZeneca.

When assessing the arguments, the judges point out that the vaccination strategy document against covid-19 in Spain provided a priority position in the order of vaccination for police and other services of emergencies, and remarks that this plan “does not establish any differentiation between the bodies” for being state or autonomous.

“Total lack of initiative”

Related news

They take into account the vaccination figures for the Mossos in comparison with the Police and the Civil Guard, and believe that “Along with this delay, there is also a total lack of initiative in the autonomic administration regarding the attention to the national bodies “.

For all that, the judges come to “the conclusion that the autonomous administration did not have the same will and commitment in the sanitary protection of national bodies with respect to inmates “.