Recurring: Particular

Recurred resolution: R/0358/2023

In the exercise of the right of access to public information, a request was submitted to the Ministry of Justice for access to information regarding the deposits and judicial appropriations that were in the Account of Provisionally Abandoned Funds and that had not yet been prescribed, with a certain breakdown that included the judicial body, procedure, date of disposition, beneficiary and amount.

The Ministry of Justice issued a resolution in which it granted partial access to information, facilitating the amount of the balance in euros in aggregate amount, denying access to the information with the requested breakdown, considering applicable the regime of protection of personal data established in article 15 LTAIBG, without being able to see public interest in the required breakdown. Subsequently, in the process of processing claims, given the alternative proposed by the claimant of receiving the requested information prior to anonymization, the Ministry emphasizes that such a process would involve carrying out a reprocessing task and might not be sufficient to avoid the identification of the natural or legal persons who were parties to the judicial proceedings from which the provisionally abandoned funds originate.

The Council partially estimates the claim in order to provide the information requested to the exclusion of the data relating to the beneficiaries, whether natural persons or legal persons, on the understanding that public and private interests in access to information are adequately satisfied with the obtaining of the information disaggregated by amount, judicial body, type of procedure and date of disposition.

In its argument, the Council starts from the consideration that there is no prevailing public interest that justifies the disclosure of the requested information in terms such that it can be connected with identified or identifiable natural persons, so that prevalence must be granted to the protection of personal data. However, it does not consider that the circumstances exist so that the need for a prior reprocessing action can be invoked, nor that the access with the described breakdown can identify affected natural or legal persons.