Recurrent: SEPI

Resolution appealed: R/0155/2022

In exercise of his right of access to information, a citizen filed a letter with the State Society of Industrial Participations (SEPI), attached to the Ministry of Finance and Public Function, requesting a copy of the file application and agreement of concession of rescue of the Airline Plus Ultra.

The requested body issued a decision denying the requested access alleging, firstly, the existence of a specific legal regime established in article 2.17 of Royal Decree Law 25/2020, of 3 July, which displaces the application of the Transparency Law; and, secondly, the concurrence of the limits provided in article 14.1.f), h), i) and k) LTAIBG —in relation to the protection, respectively, of the equality of the parties in judicial processes and effective judicial protection; of economic and commercial interests; of professional secrecy and intellectual and industrial property; and of the guarantee of confidentiality—.

Once a complaint has been filed, the Council of Transparency and Good Governance considers it partially by pointing out that, although Article 2.17 of the aforementioned Royal Decree constitutes a specific regime (at least with regard to the confidentiality reservation that it establishes), it does not prevent the subsidiary application of the Transparency Law, nor does the confidentiality reservation have to be understood in absolute terms. It then points out that the limit on access provided for in Article 14.1.h) LAITBG (economic and commercial interests) is not applicable, given the high public interest in knowing the justification of the specific budgets for obtaining the aid (allowing, however, the exclusion of accounting information or information that evidences their commercial strategies or is detrimental to their position vis-à-vis competitors). The concurrence of the limits provided for in Article 14.1.,k) is also excluded.