The Council updates its interpretative criteria on the causes of non-admission of requests for public information

The purpose is adapt them to the doctrine that has been established in this time by the CTBG through its resolutions, as well as jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and to sentences handed down by the National High Court on the subject. In these updated criteria, the Council interprets Article 18 of the LTAIBG also on the basis of the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Public Documents, which entered into force in Spain on 1 January 2024 (Convention of Tromsø).

The correct application of Article 18 of the LTAIBG, which establishes the reasons why the Administration may not admit a request for public information, is decisive to guarantee the right of access, because an interpretation that is too broad is devoid of content.

The Presidency of the Council, in the exercise of its functions, has adopted these criteria, following a report by the Committee on Transparency and Good Governance, in which a special effort has been made to use a language and a structure that facilitates the understanding of information. The criteria cite judicial rulings and Council resolutions, all with their respective links, to facilitate their consultation.

As highlighted by the President of the Council, Concepción Campos Acuña, work has been done to reinforce clarity and usefulness in the updated criteria, “since They should serve as guidance and guidance to public employees who must process and resolve requests for public information.But they must also help citizens to exercise a key constitutional right.”

A criterion has been adopted that includes the rules of common application to all causes of inadmissibility, and six specific criteria, one for each of these causes:

• Requests relating to information in the course of preparation or general publication [art. 18.1 (a)]
• Information of an auxiliary or supporting nature [art. 18.1 (b)]
• Concerning information for the disclosure of which prior reprocessing action is necessary [art. 18.1 (c)]
• Requests addressed to a body in whose possession the information is not held when the competent body is not known [art. 18.1 (d)
• Manifestly repetitive solitudes [art. 18.1 (e)]
• Requests that have an unjustified abusive nature for the purpose of transparency of the law [art. 18.1 (e)]

The Council continues to work on updating the rest of its interpretative criteria on other aspects of the LTAIBG, such as limits on access to information, in order to adapt them to its current doctrine and jurisprudence. It also works on the adoption of new criteria, such as one relating to algorithmic transparency, as well as on the formulation of recommendations to facilitate the correct compliance with the LTAIBG.

Share: