Recurrent: Particular
Resolution appealed: R/0539/2022
In exercise of their right of access to information, a letter was submitted to the Spanish Radio and Television Corporation (CRTVE) requesting the review of an internal promotion exam to access the vacancy in the category “Production Assistance”, revealing that the questions are not published and requesting that it be indicated where they can be found.
The CRTVE responded to the request by providing the scores obtained and stating that no response template has been published because in this examination format it is the applicant who must provide an explanation and personalized development of the issues raised. It adds that there is no corrected examination document as such and considers that the request is not included in the notion of public information contained in the Law on Transparency, Access to Public Information and Good Governance (LTAIBG).
In its resolution, the Council for Transparency and Good Governance recalls that its competence is limited to the resolution of claims in the field and in the matter of the right of access to public information, lacking the competence to pronounce on questions relating to the assessment of the correctness of an examination and the scores awarded, which have their normal course before the qualifying body and, where appropriate, before the administrative court.
With regard to the request for access to the copy of the corrected questions, the claim under the definition of public information in Article 13 LTAIBG defines public information and takes into account the express statements of CRTVE regarding the lack of a response template and the lack of a corrected examination as such (since it was oral).
Finally, the Council also gives its opinion on the argument, supported by the CRTVE at the time of the allegations, according to which the request would be abusive because it was not justified according to the purpose of the law, within the meaning of Article 18.1.e) LTAIBG. The Council considers that the inadmissibility of this case should be ruled out, since the jurisprudence has pointed out that the pursuit of a purely private interest is not foreseen as a cause of inadmissibility in the law, and, secondly, because the necessary cumulative concurrence of the abusive nature and lack of justification in the purpose of the law is not appreciated in this case.