Recurrent: Paradores de Turismo de España, S.M.E., S.A.

Recurred resolution: R CTBG 1425/2024

In exercise of the right of access to public information, PARADORES DE TURISMO DE ESPAÑA, S.M.E., was requested. S.A., by means of three requests, access to the list of jobs of technical advice or trust; to the list of jobs and salaries of those who are in the contractual mode of non-agreement and whose process of coverage has been of free appointment and to the salaries of each job of the staff of Paradores, without having the status of President or senior management, occupy positions that are of free appointment obtained in the year 2023.

The requested company issued three resolutions in which it indicated that it was appropriate to grant full access to information, responding, (i) that there are no contingent personnel in the company; (ii) that, as a result of the above, it is only appropriate to facilitate the remuneration of senior officials.

In his claim, the applicant underlines that he has been granted partial access on the basis of the erroneous premise related to the concepts of contingent personnel and self-appointed personnel existing in society, stressing that there are other positions of self-appointment that he is asking about.

At the allegation stage in this claim procedure, the company accumulates the three files and points out that the part of the information that has not been granted is covered by the limit of Article 15.3 LTAIBG protection of personal data, after having carried out the intended weighting between the public interest in the disclosure of the information and the right to the protection of personal data of those affected. It adds that there is a judicial procedure with the same purpose, and that, consequently, the disclosure of this information could violate the equality of the parties to the proceedings, within the meaning of article 14.1.f) LTAIBG.

The Board estimates the claim. It considers that the majority of the information requested (except that relating to remuneration and qualifications) relates to purely identifying data relating to the organisation, operation or public activity of the bodies concerned, so that the decision on access to this type of personal data is not governed by the provisions of Article 15.3 LTAIBG but by the provisions of its second paragraph, considering that the data requested are ‘merely identifying data relating to the organisation, operation or public activity of the body’. Therefore, even if what is requested is information containing personal data of these characteristics, it is not necessary to carry out the aforementioned weighting because the legislator himself has already established a rule: that access must be granted unless, exceptionally, circumstances exist that justify the prevalence of the rights of those affected. It is also noted that the applicant being a union representative provides an additional basis of legitimacy for granting access.

Finally, the application of the provisions of article 14.1.f) LTAIBG is not considered sufficiently justified, since the indication that there is a judicial process is not sufficient, without arguing the damage to the legal good protected by this limit.