Recurrent: Ministry of the Interior
Resolution appealed: R/0084/2022
In exercise of his right of access to information, the representative of the Independent Trade Union and Civil Servants Central (CSIF) requested the Ministry of the Interior to identify the officials of the Penitentiaries and Social Insertion Centers who perceive the cyclical productivity paid in the payroll of December 2021 (with a certain breakdown), including the managerial and pre-managerial staff.
The requested Administration partially granted access, providing the number of recipients of the aforementioned temporary remuneration broken down by the number of directors, pre-directors and senior staff of the Penitentiary Centers, and the total number of Central Services; but denied the rest of the requested information on the grounds that it cannot provide third parties with the specific data collected in the individualized payroll of each public penitentiary employee, regardless of the remuneration concept to which it refers (whether basic or complementary remuneration). This impossibility extends to providing data or information that makes it possible to link a person to a certain remunerative concept.
The Council for Transparency and Good Governance has submitted a complaint on the grounds that the legal obligation to provide information clearly ties in with the public interest in knowing how public funds are distributed as variable remuneration to the specific officials of an organ, agency or entity, in order to assess whether there have been arbitrary acts, abuses or unjustified discrimination. With regard to access to the list of productivity recipients, it is recalled that, although it is true that the starting premise is the weighting required by Article 15.3 LTAIBG, in this case the specific legal rule provided for in Article 23.3.c) of Law 30/1984, of 2 August, on Measures for the Reform of the Public Service, which remains in force and which imposes advertising (public knowledge) of what is perceived by each staff member in this regard by the other officials of the Department or Agency concerned as well as trade union representatives. It is also stressed that in these cases the hearing procedure provided for in Articles 19.3 and 24.3 LTAIBG is not necessary, in accordance with the doctrine established in the STS of October 15, 2020 (ECLI:TS:ES:3195:2020).