Recurrent: Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda (ADIF)

Resolution appealed: R/0465/2022

In exercise of his right of access to information, a citizen submitted a letter to the Administrator of Railway Infrastructures (ADIF), attached to the Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda, requesting information on the delimitation of two real estate entities, which make up the inventoried Special Unit A-78/5 Madrid-Delicias, of which ADIF is the owner. He requests that the information be provided to him, either by means of a public written copy or by other means in which he is registered by the public entity.

The Administration issued a decision denying access, considering that there is a specific legal regime for access to tax information, legally established in a sectoral norm, Law 33/2003, of November 3, on the Patrimony of Public Administrations, specifically in its article 33.4 – referring to the General Inventory of Goods and Rights of the State (INVESPE)-. Furthermore, it invokes the concurrence of the causes of inadmissibility referred to in article 18.1.b) and e) LTAIBG, since the information is of an auxiliary or supporting nature, on the one hand, and the request is abusive, not justified for the purpose of transparency of the Law, on the other.

The Council of Transparency and Good Governance, having submitted a complaint pursuant to Article 24 of the LTAIBG, considers it, on the one hand, that ADIF at no time denies that such information exists and is in its possession on a basis other than that established by INVESPE, and that the specific regime of access to this Register does not prevent the exercise of the right of access to public information under the LTAIBG when such exercise is not incompatible with the singular provisions of the Register. In addition, the fact that this General Inventory is not considered a public record implies, among other things, that no certifications of its contents can be requested and that the information extracted from it does not enjoy public record faith. On the other hand, on a real estate property of an entity such as ADIF must weigh the general mandate of publicity that Article 8.3 of the LTAIBG imposes on public administrations.

Finally, with regard to the grounds for non-admission invoked, the Council considers that it is not possible to assess their attendance in this case, since the abusive application cannot be considered, nor can the information requested be presented, the characteristics that could make it qualified as auxiliary or supportive.