The Supreme Court will determine whether Articles 46 and 49 of Law 10/2010 on the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism constitute a specific regime of access to information for the purposes of Additional Provision 1.2 of the LTAIBG that excludes the application of Law 19/2013 on Transparency, Access to Information and Good Governance (LTAIBG); and, if applicable, whether the duty of reservation and secrecy established by the aforementioned Law 10/2010 reaches the minutes of the meetings of the Commission for the Prevention of Money Laundering.

In the application for admission of appealthe Supreme Court recalls that the Chamber has already had the opportunity to give its opinion on many previous occasions on the interpretation of Additional Provision 1ª(2) of the LTAIBG and the existence and scope of specific legal regimes on access to public information, but has not yet done so in relation to Law 10/2010, appreciating the desirability of supplementing existing jurisprudence.

This appeal is based on a complaint lodged with the Council by a citizen after the Administration denied his request for access to the agendas and minutes of all the meetings held by the plenary of the Committee on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Monetary Offences, its Standing Committee and the Financial Intelligence Committee held since 1 January 2015.

The Council partially considered the claim, on the basis that the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act does not constitute a specific regime of access to information that precludes the application of the LTAIBG, without the duty of secrecy imposed by the Act on the staff of the Commission being considered as such. And he recalled that there is a consolidated criterion in favor of access to the minutes of the collegiate management bodies of public sector bodies and entities, since their decisions have an impact on the exercise of public functions.

This access, the Council clarified, must be made after the deletion, where appropriate, of personal data that allow the identification of natural persons who are not part of the collegiate body and whose identification is not relevant for the purposes of monitoring the performance of public authorities; and, on the other hand, of the opinions and statements made by its members in the deliberations that affect the confidentiality or secrecy required in the formation of the will of the collegiate body, a criterion endorsed by the judgment of the Supreme Court (STS) of 19 February 2021 (ECLI:ES:TS:2021:704).

When the decision was appealed by the Ministry concerned, Central Administrative Court No. 8 considered the appeal, annulling the Council ' s decision. This decision was confirmed by the National High Court, which, rejecting the Council’s appeal, considers that the duty of reservation and secrecy established in Law 10/2010 is applicable, a specific regime that, although not complete, affects essential aspects of the access and dissemination of information available to the Commission for the Prevention of Money Laundering so that the law of transparency cannot be applied but the exceptions and limitations contained in the aforementioned sectoral law.

• Access to the resolution and sentences here