In its judgment 301/2026 of March 11 (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:1164), the Supreme Court reasoned that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents does not apply to requests for access to public information held by the Spanish Administration (although this information has its direct or indirect origin in the activity of the Community institutions or is related to the activity of the EU), as it only applies to the documentation held by the Community institutions.

In addition, the provision of Article 5 of the European Regulation (based on the principle of loyal cooperation) is not applicable to those cases in which the information is held by a Member State but originates in an institution of the Union because, in this case, the agreement on the donation or resale of vaccines was “the result of autonomous negotiation” between the Spanish and Andorran authorities, outside the European Commission.

Therefore, the judgment concludes, access to information has to be resolved by applying national regulations, and, in this case, the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products. (AEMPS) It has not sufficiently justified the concurrence of the limit of Art. 14.1.k) LTAIBG - the guarantee of confidentiality or the secrecy required in decision-making processes -, which has a limited temporal scope, with no impact on access in the negotiation process once the agreement has been reached.

Nor has the limit of art. 14.1.c) LTAIBG - damage to external relations - therefore, the judgment highlights, "The intervention of a third State in the elaboration of a convention does not imply that its content should be secret or that the information relating to it can be denied by invoking generically the possible damage to external relations..."

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has issued another judgment, 295/2026, of March 10 (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:1176), which refers to our resolution 55/2023, in which we partially consider a claim on access to the economic cost of coronavirus vaccines and contracts signed with laboratories.

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterates that Regulation (EC) 1049/2011 on public access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission does not apply, because the information is held by the Spanish Administration, but, On the other hand, the provision of its Article 5 (mechanism of loyal cooperation) is applicable because the information originates from a Community institution and the decision on access does not have “a clear solution” that allows the Member State to resolve directly.

Thus, in this case, the Spanish State did not have any margin for negotiating the purchase price of vaccines, since this was predetermined by the Preferential Purchase Agreements signed between the European Commission and the pharmaceutical companies. And the AEMPS has not duly justified, despite the invocation of the limits of art. 14.1.h), j) and k) LTAIBG, which could/should directly deny access without consultation or referral to the European Commission.

Therefore, the Supreme Court declares that the appeal lodged by the Council has taken place, but partially considers the appeal lodged by the AEMPS, as well as the claim of the interested party, and annuls our resolution so that, in respect of this request for access, the AEMPS consults with the European Commission or forwards the request for access to information.Judgment 296/2026 (ECLI:ES:TS:2026:1175) was delivered on the same date.