The Supreme Court absolves the former head of personnel of Gómez Ulla of guilt for the hiring of her sister and the professor of her son

The Supreme Court annuls the conviction of the former head of Human Resources of Gómez Ulla for the hiring of her sister and her son's English teacher.

1 minute

fotonoticia 20260522175803 1920

fotonoticia 20260522175803 1920

Add DEMÓCRATA to Google

Published

1 minute

Most read

The Supreme Court has annulled the conviction imposed on the former head of Human Resources of the Central Defense Hospital Gómez Ulla, in Madrid, who had been sentenced for incorporating her sister and her son's English teacher into the staff at said health center.

The decision comes from the Military Chamber, according to a ruling to which Europa Press has had access, in which the appeal filed by the lieutenant colonel against the ruling of the Central Military Court is upheld. This body had sentenced her to 11 months in prison, to pay compensation of 60,000 euros, and to the suspension of military service for alleged crimes against property in the military sphere and for exceeding the limits of command.

In its resolution, the high court determines that "it has not been proven that the appellant committed said crimes by hiring her son's English teacher as a ward assistant and her sister as a biosecurity expert" at the Gómez Ulla.

The Supreme Court specifies that the responsibility for the temporary contract of her son's English teacher fell to the hospital director, "even though she was the one who prepared the corresponding documentation and took it to the Director for signature."

As for the sister, she was incorporated into the staff, along with 44 other people, to ensure the functioning of the new High-Level Isolation Unit, created urgently to respond to the health crisis caused by the Ebola virus.

The Chamber dismisses the existence of the crime of exceeding the limits of command attributed to the lieutenant colonel for hiring her sister as a biosecurity expert. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, "no abuse" is appreciated in her informing the director that her sister, "who was already providing services at the hospital and was widely known," met the requirements for the position.

The Supreme Court concludes that "regardless of the interest the appellant may have had in her sister occupying that position, it has not been proven that she engaged in any conduct constituting a crime."