Miguel Socorro takes the Canary Islands Government to court: 40 years waiting for an end to a “pay injustice”

Miguel Ángel Socorro Perdomo, a career civil servant with Fuerteventura Island Council, has taken the Canary Islands Government to court over the alleged violation of the fundamental right of petition, recognised in Article 29 of the Spanish Constitution, after receiving no response to a request submitted on 14 May 2026.

The legal proceedings, case 491/2026, before Court of Instance No. 1 in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, stem from a longstanding demand: the definitive incorporation of the residence allowance into supplementary pay, as provided for in regional legislation since 1989.

The demand has considerable social and employment implications, potentially affecting almost 150,000 public-sector employees in the Canary Islands, according to the campaign’s organiser. It is an issue that cuts across administrations, services, grades and professional categories, and affects staff in the regional administration (including the Consultative Council, the Canary Islands Audit Office, the Ombudsman of the Canary Islands, the Canary Islands Health Service, the Canary Islands Employment Service, the Canary Islands Tax Agency, the Economic and Social Council, Canary Islands institutes, etc.), Island Councils, Town Councils, public companies and bodies, universities, teachers, staff transferred from the Administration of Justice, and local and regional police, among other groups.

This is not a demand from one particular sector, but an issue of pay fairness that concerns public-sector employment across the Canary Islands, regardless of which administration employs each worker.

The Canary Islands Civil Service Act 2/1987 established that the specific allowance may remunerate the “place of residence”. Subsequently, the Canary Islands Budget Act 3/1989 provided for the residence allowance to be incorporated into that allowance, while its separate payment continued on a transitional basis.

Yet almost 38 years later, that incorporation remains pending.

“How is it possible that a situation the legislature itself declared transitional in 1989 is still in force almost forty years later? What began as a provisional measure has become a pay injustice perpetuated for decades. Maintaining this situation for so long shows a genuine lack of respect and consideration for the almost 150,000 public-sector employees in the Canary Islands. No transitional arrangement can be used as an excuse to justify four decades of failure to implement a statutory provision,” Miguel Socorro says.

One of the main arguments behind the demand is that the state has already legislated for the incorporation of the territorial residence component into supplementary pay for certain groups within the Administration of Justice.

Act 15/2003, Royal Decree 1130/2003 and Royal Decrees 1170/2007 and 1171/2007 are relevant legislative precedents for judges, magistrates, public prosecutors and court clerks, now known as lawyers for the Administration of Justice.

For these groups, the territorial component is linked to the destination allowance for special circumstances, with the corresponding financial effect under their specific pay arrangements. As it is incorporated into the destination allowance, which is included in additional salary payments, the territorial component is effectively paid fourteen times a year: in twelve regular monthly payments and two additional payments. This represents a particularly significant pay difference compared with public-sector employees in the Canary Islands whose residence allowance remains a separate item, is not incorporated into supplementary pay and does not count towards additional payments.

By contrast, other public-sector employees in the Canary Islands continue to receive the residence allowance as a separate item, in twelve monthly payments, without the same effect on additional payments.

“Why did the state legislate more than twenty years ago for residence to be incorporated into supplementary pay for these groups, while many public-sector employees still receive it separately and without the same effect on additional payments?” the official asks.

Socorro Perdomo stresses that updating residence allowance rates is not enough: its definitive incorporation into supplementary pay must also be addressed through the relevant legislative reforms, to secure equivalent pay treatment and ensure it is reflected in all fourteen annual payments.

On 14 May 2026, the Head of Budget Management at Fuerteventura Island Council submitted a petition under the fundamental right of petition, seeking the definitive incorporation of the residence allowance, an assessment of its financial impact and consideration of possible remedial measures.

The Canary Islands Government did not respond within the statutory three-month period, prompting a legal claim over the alleged violation of the fundamental right of petition.

Furthermore, by an order dated 2 October 2026, the court required the regional administration to explain, within a non-extendable period of five days, why it had not submitted the administrative file. It warned that coercive fines of between €300 and €1,200 could be imposed and repeated every twenty days.

The claimant alleges that the Canary Islands Government also failed to respond to the Ombudsman of the Canary Islands within the required period and did not include that institution’s communications in the court file.

“First, they ignore a fundamental right recognised in the Constitution. Then they fail to comply with the Ombudsman of the Canary Islands’ request within the time allowed. Finally, a court has to intervene to require them to submit the administrative file. Is this the transparency, respect for fundamental rights and exemplary conduct that should be expected of a public administration? How can the Canary Islands Government demand that citizens meet their obligations when the administration itself is failing to meet its own? It is unacceptable that a citizen should have to go to court to obtain something as basic as a response from their own administration. Administrative silence must not become a strategy for evading responsibility or perpetuating for decades a pay injustice affecting thousands of public-sector employees in the Canary Islands,” Miguel Socorro says.

The claim seeks a finding that the right of petition was violated and an order requiring the regional government to provide an explicit response. It does not ask the court to award specific sums of money.

Miguel Socorro believes that keeping the residence allowance as a separate item for almost four decades may have had significant cumulative financial consequences, particularly because it has not affected additional payments, depending on the rules applicable to each group.

He is therefore calling on all trade unions representing public-sector employees in the Canary Islands to form a joint union platform to demand a definitive solution.

“We cannot keep fighting separately. We are talking about almost 200,000 public-sector employees. Trade union unity is essential if we are to achieve what has not been achieved in almost forty years.”

He insists that negotiations should not be limited to updating current residence allowance rates, but should seek its definitive incorporation into supplementary pay, using existing precedents in the Administration of Justice as a reference.

The campaign has taken a further step. On 19 October 2026, Miguel Ángel Socorro Perdomo submitted a new petition under the fundamental right of petition to the State Secretariat for Civil Service, asking the Government of Spain to consider promoting a legislative initiative to incorporate the residence allowance into supplementary pay for public-sector employees posted to the Canary Islands, the Balearic Islands, Ceuta, Melilla and the Aran Valley, where they are entitled to this allowance.

The petition is based on two particularly relevant state provisions: Article 25.One.e) of the General State Budget Act 37/1988 for 1989, and Article 19.One.e) of the General State Budget Act 4/1990 for 1990. Both expressly established that the residence allowance was transitional until supplementary pay for posts could be adjusted to reflect the specific circumstances of the territories concerned.

Almost forty years later, many public-sector employees still receive this allowance as a separate item, with no general legislative solution having been implemented to bring that transitional arrangement to an end.

In the Canary Islands, this state-level initiative is particularly relevant to staff at the Government Delegation and Sub-delegations, the State Tax Administration Agency (AEAT), Social Security, the National Police, the Civil Guard, the Armed Forces, prisons, the State Public Employment Service (SEPE), the State Meteorological Agency (AEMET), Customs, the Coast and State Highways, among other bodies and services of the General State Administration.

The petition also notes that the state has already set precedents for incorporating residence-related payments into the destination allowance for judges, magistrates, public prosecutors and lawyers for the Administration of Justice, under Act 15/2003 and Royal Decrees 1130/2003, 1170/2007 and 1171/2007.

This incorporation may have a particularly significant financial effect: when the territorial component forms part of an allowance included in additional payments, it may be paid fourteen times a year, compared with the twelve monthly payments in which the residence allowance is usually paid as a separate item, depending on the applicable arrangements.

“If the state itself provided more than twenty years ago for residence to be incorporated into the destination allowance for judges, magistrates, public prosecutors and lawyers for the Administration of Justice, what justification is there for thousands of public-sector employees still to be waiting for equivalent treatment almost forty years after the 1989 and 1990 budget provisions? We are not asking for privileges. We are asking the Government to explain how long it intends to maintain a situation that the legislature itself expressly described as transitional,” Socorro Perdomo says.

The initiative asks the Government of Spain for an explicit, reasoned response on whether it would be appropriate to promote legislative or regulatory reform to resolve the situation, while respecting the specific pay arrangements of each group and the powers of the different administrations.

The preparation of the Canary Islands’ 2027 Budget and the corresponding state-level legislative initiatives represent an opportunity to bring this situation to an end.

“We are not asking for privileges or preferential treatment. We are asking for an end to an endless transitional arrangement, unjustified pay differences and the failure to implement an incorporation that has been provided for since 1989.”

Miguel Socorro concludes with an appeal to political and trade union leaders:

“The demand has now been put to the Canary Islands Government, the courts and, now, the Government of Spain. After almost forty years, the time has come to move from promises and transitional provisions to definitive solutions. 2027 must mark the end of this pay injustice,” the official concludes.