Recurrent: Ministry of Labor and Social Economy.

Recurred resolution: R/1048/2023

In exercise of its right of access to public information, a letter was submitted to the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour and Social Economy, requesting information related to the inspections and the sanctioning files filed with Castilla-La Mancha TV, including the resolutions relapsed.

The requested Administration denied access to the information on the grounds that the first additional provision, paragraph 2, of the LTAIBG was applicable, since there was, in respect of the inspection proceedings prior to the sanctioning procedure, a specific legal regime for access to information established by Law 23/2015, of 21 July, Ordinator of the Labour and Social Security Inspection System. In addition, the existence of a duty of confidentiality and secrecy with respect to the acts of infringement and liquidation of Social Security quotas was invoked.

The Council, in its resolution R/707/2019, of 9 January 2020, began by limiting the purpose of the claim to access to the inspection and liquidation records of Social Security quotas, since that was the information that affected the requested body, excluding the sanctioning files and the resolutions, which, by reason of the matter, are the competence of other bodies. After that, the Council concluded that the existence of the specific legal regime of specific access alleged was not appreciated and proceeded to partially estimate the claim, urging the Administration to allow access to those parts of the infringement proceedings that were not affected by the secrets of the company under investigation or by the duty of confidentiality in respect of proceedings that were not in progress.

In response to that decision, the Ministry filed an administrative appeal, which was considered in the first instance by the Central Administrative Court No. 1 in Judgment No. 38/2021 of 12 March. When an appeal was lodged, the National High Court revoked the ruling and partially upheld the appeal, ordering the proceedings to be taken back in order for the CTBG to grant a hearing to the third party affected by the access and, once the allegations had been studied, to issue a new decision.

With regard to the resolution now being appealed, it must be assumed that the entity concerned did not make any allegation opposing the delivery of the information requested in the hearing procedure that was granted to it, so the CTBG confirms the aforementioned resolution, in the terms in which it was issued, and, consequently, dictates the same resolution in this procedure.