ABSTRACT

A citizen asked the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport for the identity of the experts who had intervened in the accreditation procedures for access to the university teaching bodies in which he had participated.

The Ministry alleged that, if the information was granted, the limit set forth in the LTAIBG regarding the guarantee of confidentiality or secrecy required in the decision-making process would be violated (art. 14.1 (k).

In its resolution, the Council of Transparency and Good Governance considers that access to the personal information requested (whenever the names and surnames of experts are requested) would imply a violation of their right to data protection not covered by the right of access to public information regulated in the LTAIBG. Likewise, and taking into account “that although it would be a question of access to the identity of experts a posteriori, that is, once the accreditation procedure has already been completed, it is no less clear that (…) the refusal or non-refusal of information would be linked to future procedures, since it would change the framework according to which the expert reports are prepared”, it considers that the stated limit applies, considering that: “Taking into account all these elements of judgment (the limited impact of the report on the accreditation process, due to the fact that the decision falls to the Accreditation Commission; the fact that said report, prepared in anonymity, can be issued with greater freedom; that the identity of the experts, grouped by areas of knowledge, whether public and, as a result, that a recusal process can be initiated prior to the possible participation in a specific request for accreditation, allow us to conclude that, in this case, the protection of the required secrecy prevails in the decision-making processes, in the terms provided in Article 14.1 (k) of the LTAIBG”.

The applicant, in disagreement with the criterion contained in the resolution of the Transparency Council, has filed an administrative appeal.

State: At this moment there is already a judgment of the Madrid Administrative Court No. 1 in favor of the resolution of the Council of Transparency and Good Governance and judgment on appeal dismissed, that is, that confirms the previous one.