Recurrent: Ministry of the Presidency, Justice and Relations with the Courts
Resolution appealed: R CTBG 0515/2026
In exercise of the right of access to public information, the MINISTRY OF THE PRESIDENCY, JUSTICE AND RELATIONS WITH THE COURTS was requested to access the reports of the State Attorney on the possibility of terminating the contracts awarded to the companies IMI SYSTEMS LTD and Guardian Defense & Homeland Security S.A., as well as all requests for reports made from any level of the Ministry of the Interior on this issue.
The State Attorney issued a resolution in which it agrees to deny access in accordance with the provisions of Additional Provision 1, second paragraph, of the LTAIBG, on the understanding that there is a specific regime of access to public information constituted by Article 16 of Organic Law 5/2024, of November 11, of the Right of Defense (LODD), which is applicable under the provisions of Additional Provision 7 of Law 52/1997, of November 27, on Legal Assistance to the State and Public Institutions (hereinafter LAJEIP). In the light of the complaint lodged, which underlines the fact that the limit provided for in Article 14.1.f) LTAIBG has not been invoked, the State Legal Service argued that the reports sought, before “the eventuality of a legal conflict (…), may already be defining elements of the strategy to be followed by the General Administration of the State».
The Council partially considers the claim by pointing out that the reference to the hypothetical filing of a contentious-administrative appeal is not sufficient to deny access insofar as it has not been justified that access to the content of the report could hinder the defence capabilities of the State Administration, nor necessarily anticipate procedural strategies that harm the equality of procedural weapons of the parties. This hypothetical nature of the risk is reflected in the assertion by the State Legal Service itself, made in the procedural claims, that “The limit of equality of the parties in judicial proceedings has not been used because there is still no evidence that there is any legal process.». It is therefore appropriate to recognize the right of the claimant to access this information; however, this right must be limited to the report referred to by the State Attorney ' s Office, which it prepared in response to the Ministry ' s consultation (regardless of its nomenclature) but not to the rest of the information requested, since this Council understands that access to the report prepared by the State Attorney ' s Office meets the requirements of transparency imposed by our legal system.