ABSTRACT

A citizen submitted a request for access to information addressed to the Ministry of the Interior that was intended to know information regarding your personal interview in the selective process convened by resolution of the General Directorate of the Civil Guard.

In its reply, the aforementioned Directorate-General agreed to provide partial information, but considered that, on the one hand, the working documents of the interviewers were auxiliary or supportive and, on the other, the limit that guarantees the confidentiality required in the decision-making process was applicable, which could be violated if access was given to the technical documentation of the psychotechnical and personal interview evidence of the applicant.

Once the complaint was filed, it was estimated by the Council of Transparency and Good Governance, which determined that the information should be provided. In fact, the Administration had previously allowed the claimant to access face-to-face access to see contents of the qualifying file itself.

In its resolution, the Council considered that the requested documentation could not be classified as auxiliary or supporting because it had been generated by the interviewers and, on the basis of it, the Court adopted a determinant decision in the procedure. Likewise, it was not considered that providing access to the information requested by the claimant would violate the confidentiality required in the decision-making process, a limit provided in the LTAIBG, since the basis of the call does not expressly provide for the confidentiality of the request, which, in addition, affects the data of the applicant and the decision had already been adopted.

State: Both the judgment in the first instance and the judgment on appeal of the National High Court are favourable to the resolution of the Council of Transparency and Good Governance, that is, to provide information.