Recurrent: Grupo Tragsa, S.A., S.M.E.

Recurred resolution: R/0666/2023

In exercise of its right of access to public information, a letter was filed with the Tragsa Group, S.M.E, requesting various information related to framework agreements signed with three communities of irrigators. These agreements were signed for the development, by the state trading company, of management actions, maintenance, repairs and improvements. Information is requested on the annual plans and budgets at the beginning of each financial year, as well as reports at the end of each campaign relating to the tasks carried out during the same, documents by which the content of the framework agreements is developed.

The requested company issued an inadmissible decision on the grounds that the proceedings were not carried out by virtue of an order received as its own means and the disclosure of which could prejudice its commercial and economic interests, in accordance with the provisions of article 14.1.h) LTAIBG.

Once the complaint has been filed, the Council of Transparency and Good Governance considers it because it does not appreciate the application of the access limit invoked. It considers, in this regard, that the explanation provided by society in its resolution is manifestly insufficient to comply with the requirements of article 14.2 LTAIBG, and specified in the doctrine of the Council and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, for the correct application of the legal limits to the right of access to public information.

The Council underlines that the requested entity did not respond to its request for the submission of the file nor did it submit the requested allegations, which prevented it from having sufficient evidence to properly assess the concurrent circumstances and to be able to make an informed decision on whether or not to grant access to the requested information.

Consequently, it considered the complaint and urged the requested company to grant access to the information with the exception, where appropriate, of those contents whose dissemination would cause real harm to its economic and commercial interests, and the exclusion must be justified in the terms required by Article 14.2 LTAIBG and the doctrine set forth in the resolution itself.