The High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands has overturned a ruling that ordered Spain’s National Police to pay €20,000 to an officer stationed in Ibiza who reported years of homophobic insults, humiliation and workplace hostility.

In a judgment dated 23 September 2026, the court upheld an appeal by the police administration and rejected the officer’s claim for compensation. The judges accepted that specific incidents had been documented in 2012 and 2013 but concluded that the evidence was not sufficiently precise to establish a continuous period of workplace harassment requiring the preventive measures claimed.

The decision reverses a judgment issued by the Court of First Instance in Ibiza on 8 May 2026, which had partially upheld the officer’s claim and awarded him €20,000 for the administration’s alleged failure to comply with occupational risk-prevention obligations.

Complaints over homophobic insults and humiliating images

The case dates back to 2012, when the officer, who had been stationed in Ibiza since 2005, began reporting hostility in his workplace. He also performed as a dancer at nightclubs and events associated with the gay community, and the court record described derogatory comments connected with that activity.

According to the published account of the proceedings, the insults included homophobic slurs and other offensive language. The reported behaviour also involved messages shared in a WhatsApp group and photographs of the officer dressed as a dancer, accompanied by insulting text, displayed inside police premises.

One of the first documented incidents occurred in August 2012. The officer and a colleague submitted a complaint to the chief of the Ibiza police station about insults and threats circulated by another officer in a group chat.

The incident led to disciplinary proceedings and a serious disciplinary sanction against the officer responsible.

In August 2013, the complainant reported that a photocopy containing photographs of him and offensive messages had appeared on a noticeboard in the station’s rest area. He said similar material had appeared elsewhere in the building. An internal investigation followed, but the people responsible for putting up the images were not identified.

First court ruling awarded €20,000

The officer later sought compensation from the Directorate-General of the Police, claiming €372,374.44 for personal, financial and non-material harm that he attributed to the administration’s handling of the situation.

In February 2023, he lodged a formal workplace-harassment complaint with the police administration. The administration opened a procedure, took statements from witnesses and people named in the complaint, and obtained reports. It closed the proceedings in October 2023, concluding that the allegations did not fall within the scope of its workplace-harassment protocol.

The officer then brought the matter before the courts.

On 8 May 2026, the Court of First Instance in Ibiza partially upheld his claim and ordered the Directorate-General of the Police to pay €20,000. The first-instance judge found that, despite the complaints and the administration’s knowledge of conflicts at the station, effective preventive measures had not been taken to protect the officer’s psychological health.

The ruling also referred to workplace risk assessments that had identified problems with the working environment but, according to the judge, had not led to sufficiently concrete preventive action.

The police administration appealed the decision.

High court finds the evidence insufficient to establish prolonged harassment

The TSJIB has now overturned the compensation award.

The judges recognised that particular incidents had occurred in 2012 and 2013. However, they considered that the broader account of insults and humiliation over approximately a decade lacked the dates and specific circumstances needed to establish that the officer had experienced a continuous pattern of workplace harassment lasting until 2023.

The court noted that one documented episode resulted in disciplinary action, while the investigation into the photographs did not identify those responsible. It concluded that the incidents established in 2012 and 2013 were insufficient, on their own, to prove the prolonged harassment alleged.

The judgment also examined the officer’s medical history and retirement on grounds of permanent incapacity for service in May 2023. According to the published account, the police medical assessment linked the psychological disorder underlying his retirement to a judicial proceeding.

The officer had been investigated in a criminal case in 2022, but that case was provisionally archived in August of the same year. The existence of that separate proceeding does not itself establish wrongdoing by the officer, nor does its provisional closure determine the workplace-harassment claim.

Risk assessment did not establish liability in this case

The high court’s decision also addressed a psychosocial risk assessment carried out in 2014. The judges noted that the Directorate-General of the Police had not implemented the measures arising from that assessment.

However, the court concluded that this omission did not demonstrate a breach of preventive obligations in relation to the specific incidents established in the officer’s claim. It therefore revoked the first-instance ruling in full and removed the €20,000 compensation award.

The court rejected the officer’s claim and did not order either party to pay the other’s legal costs.

The ruling may still be challenged

The judgment provides for the possibility of an appeal to Spain’s Supreme Court through a procedure for unifying legal doctrine, subject to the applicable requirements and deadline.

The published account does not establish whether such an appeal has been filed. The TSJIB decision therefore marks the latest reported judicial outcome, but the available information does not confirm whether the proceedings have definitively concluded.

The case highlights the distinction between acknowledging specific incidents of workplace hostility and establishing, under the applicable legal standard, that the administration breached its preventive duties over a prolonged period. The high court overturned the compensation award because it considered the evidence insufficient to establish that legal responsibility in this case.