Go to content

RCA 429. Associative days enjoyed, broken down by professional association of the Civil Guard.                                                                                                                                                                                

Recurrent: Ministry of the Interior

Resolution appealed: R CTBG 0233/2026

In exercise of the right of access to public information, the MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR was requested to provide the «number of association days used by each of the representative associations of the Civil Guard in the years 2022, 2023, 2024 and so on».

The Ministry did not issue a ruling within the legally established time limit, so the petition was deemed to have been rejected and expedited the way to claim article 24 LTAIBG. Subsequently, during the processing of this procedure, it provides information related to the request, but not to the level of disaggregation requested, indicating that the professional associations are not within the scope of application of the LTAIBG and that the claimant holds the status of Member of the Civil Guard Council, so that he can obtain the information of each of the associations.

The Council considers the claim, noting that Organic Law 11/2007, of 22 October, regulating the rights and duties of the members of the Civil Guard and Royal Decree 175/2022, of 4 March, which develops the rights of professional associations of civil guards, does not establish a specific access regime, as seems to be inferred from the statements of the Administration, coming to recognize an additional right to obtain information on labor issues, both by the members of the Corps individually and by their representative associations, without such recognition constituting any obstacle to the exercise of the right of access under the provisions of the LTAIBG.

The request is considered to be public information, given that it is contents that are in the possession of the requested Ministry, prepared or acquired in the exercise of its personnel management functions, without having been accredited the concurrence of a cause of non-admission of article 18 LTAIBG, or of the limit of those established in article 14 LTAIBG, that prevents or restricts access to it. It is concluded by pointing out that the delivery obligation has not been duly fulfilled, since the information with the required level of breakdown has not been provided, and therefore the claim should be estimated for this purpose.