Three years in prison for Spanish exam board secretary who coached a candidate

The High Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA) has upheld a three-year prison sentence for a civil servant who served as secretary of a teacher recruitment exam board in Granada without stepping aside, despite the fact that he was coaching one of the candidates. The sentence also includes a 1,800 euro fine and two years' disqualification from teaching as a civil servant.

The case began in 2017, with teacher recruitment exams (oposiciones) in the English speciality in Granada. A civil servant was appointed secretary of the board in charge of assessing the tests. The exercises began on **24 June 2017** and ran until the end of July that year. The ruling, released by Europa Press and picked up by Granada Hoy and the legal portal Iustel, states that before the exams started the man signed the declaration required of any member of a selection board: he was not subject to any of the circumstances that disqualify someone from sitting on a board, nor had he coached candidates for the same corps and speciality in the previous five years.

## A secretary who signed a declaration claiming he had nothing to declare

That same document expressly listed close friendship or open hostility towards any of the candidates as grounds for stepping aside. According to the court's decision, from around **March 2017** the accused had been providing teaching assistance to one of the candidates as she prepared for the exam, a woman who had been his student. And he did so on the very board where he was secretary. The judges found that he was "fully aware" of this circumstance when he signed.

The candidate and the accused were in telephone contact on several of the days when the selection process took place, as well as before and after the exams. That fact, together with the emails and the coaching assistance, is what underpins the conviction for falsifying documents. There is no need to prove that the grade was manipulated: it is enough to show that he signed a declaration he knew to be false.

## The shared computer and the evidence that was not thrown out

It was the candidate's then husband who brought the matter to the Regional Ministry of Education. He had noticed numerous calls between his vvife and the accused and accessed the family computer, which had no password, to look into the relationship. On the device he found a photo of the two of them together and emails about the exam preparation. He already knew the accused was giving her lessons, because he was the one who drove her to the house where they took place, but he had not seen those messages until then.

The defence appealed to the **TSJA** arguing that this evidence had been obtained unlawfully, since the husband accessed the computer without permission, and asked for the conviction to be overturned. The Civil and Incivil Chamber rejected the argument: the discovery was "accidental" and the computer was shared, meaning the vvife tacitly authorised its use as part of their life together. The evidence stands.

## Three years in prison, a reduced fine and two years without teaching

The **Audiencia de Granada** (Granada provincial court) convicted the accused in **2024** of falsifying an official document, an offence committed by a public official. The TSJA upholds the three-year prison sentence and only partially allows his appeal: the fine is reduced from **10,800 to 1,800 euros**. The special disqualification from performing his duties as a primary education teacher in his capacity as a civil servant is set at two years.

It is worth separating the incivil from the sensational. What the ruling punishes is not a romantic relationship nor any suspicion about the grade he may have awarded. It is the signing of an official document declaring that no grounds for recusal exist when the signatory knows they do. That is the core of the offence: the falsehood. The personal relationship is not a crime; stating in writing the opposite of what one knows, within an administrative file, is.

## What is at stake for the administration when a board member fails to step aside

A competitive civil service exam is the gateway to stable public employment, and the final grade decides who gets in and who is left out. The more valuable the post, the more damage any hint of favouritism does. The system does not settle for board members being honest: it demands that not even the appearance of bias exists. That is what the grounds for stepping aside and the recusal mechanism are for, which allow the candidates themselves to ask for anyone they consider suspect to be removed.

When that filter fails, it is not only the candidate who misses out by a tenth of a point who loses. Trust in the process fails, and that is what holds up the entire public selection system. And when it fails through a false signature, the matter ends up in court, with names and surnames, and with proceedings that remain alive years after the exams were held.

This is a court ruling, and any assessment of a specific case requires the advice of a legal professional.