The controversy stems from the compatibility request submitted by the officer in May 2024. A year later, the High Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid granted him this right, provided his private activities did not interfere with his responsibilities and schedule as a public official. However, the State Administration filed an appeal against this ruling, elevating the case to the High Court.

Current legislation, the Law 53/1984 on Incompatibilities of personnel at the service of Public Administrations, allows members of the Civil Guard to combine their position with private activities, as long as the specific supplements they receive do not exceed 30% of their basic remuneration.

The core of the debate lies in whether the specific supplement, intended to equalize the salaries of Civil Guards and National Police with those of regional police forces, should be included in the calculation of this percentage. This supplement was established in a March 2018 agreement between the Ministry of Interior, the National Police unions, and the professional associations of the Civil Guard.

The TSJ of Madrid's ruling had overturned the initial decision by the Ministry of Interior, which had denied the request from the officer stationed in Costa Teguise, arguing that the specific supplement for the characteristics of his position exceeded 30% of his basic remuneration.

The State Administration, in its appeal, asks the Administrative Litigation Chamber to clarify whether the salary equalization supplement should be considered when determining incompatibility with private activities for members of the Civil Guard. If excluded, only supplements related to the specific conditions, arduousness, or difficulty of the job would be counted.

The Supreme Court's decision will not only affect the specific case of the Lanzarote Civil Guard but, according to the order accessed by Canarias Ahora, will set a legal precedent for future interpretations of this law in situations involving both Civil Guards and National Police officers.