This resource, admitted on January 22, has its origin in our resolution 605/2021, in which we estimate a claim filed by UGT with the Ministry of Justice to access the criteria of allocation of the productivity supplement and the amounts satisfied for productivity and extraordinary bonuses with identification of the recipients.

The Ministry had denied the request on the grounds that the information sought should fall within the scope of the labour relations between the workers ' representatives and the Department ' s officials, covered by the current regulations (LO 11/1985 on Freedom of Association, Basic Statute of the Public Employee (EBEP), Workers ' Statute and Act No. 30/84 on Measures for the Reform of the Public Service).

The Council considered the complaint arguing that it is a doctrine established by the Supreme Court that the EBEP does not contain a specific access regime that displaces the right of the union to request public information under Law 19/2013, of 9 December, on transparency, access to public information and good governance (LTAIBG).

When the resolution was challenged by the Ministry, the Central Administrative Court No. 6 considered it to be in compliance with the law, but the National High Court annulled our resolution. The National High Court considers that Article 23.3(c) of Law 30/1984 is not currently in force because it has been repealed by the EBEP in the single derogation provision (b). This article states that the amounts received by each official for the concept of productivity “shall be publicly known to the other officials of the Department or Agency concerned as well as to the trade union representatives.”

In considering - unlike the Council - the repeal of this article, the National High Court argues that in this case the weighting of Article 15.3 of the Transparency Law must be carried out, since it affects the requested information to personal data, and does not consider justified the public interest in complying with the requested information.

The Supreme Court has admitted our cassation document to the proceedings, declaring that The objective casational interest for the formation of jurisprudence is to determine whether, according to the existing regulations contained in Article 23.3 c) of Law 30/1984, Final Provision 4.3 of RD Legislative Decree 5/2015, as well as in Article 15.3 LTAIBG, Ltrade union representatives have the right of access to public information on the amounts received by each official as a productivity supplement. The Supreme Court admitted on September 12 another resource of the Council on the same issue (RCA 3876/2024).