The Supreme Court agrees with Vox deputies and forces the Government to provide information about its advisors

The

has upheld an appeal filed by several Vox deputies against the Government's refusal to provide the parliamentary information requested on March 3, 2021 by the appellants, who wanted to know the name and surnames, academic and professional training, and functions of all the advisers of the

.

The State Administration replied to the deputies that it was not appropriate to provide the names, surnames and CVs of that staff because it affected personal data, and attached an annex with information regarding the temporary trusted staff that provides service in the Delegations. of the government.

Subsequently, on June 3, and when the deputies had already presented the contentious-administrative appeal, the State Attorney's Office, in answering the lawsuit, raised the possible extra-procedural satisfaction by pointing out to the appellants that "their honorable members can consult said information by arranging a visit" through an email address that they attached or a telephone number that they also provided.

The Contentious-Administrative Chamber concludes that the Administration has infringed the fundamental right of article 23.2 of the Constitution of the plaintiffs -the right to equal access to public functions and positions-, first by denying the information and, later, by offering the plaintiff deputies as an alternative that they arrange a visit to the administrative headquarters.

The Chamber recalls that the essential content of the infringed fundamental right is contained in article 7 of the Regulations of the Congress of Deputies, where it is stated that for the best performance of their parliamentary functions, parliamentarians, prior knowledge of the respective group, will have the power to collect from the Public Administrations the data, reports or documents held by them.

The Fourth Section, presided over by Judge

adds that it is not an unlimited right, since the Administration can deny the documentation or information of interest for "reasons founded in law", but that "they must be duly explained and can be that is, they can justify the refusal to provide all or part of the documentation or limit access to its consultation for the sake of protecting the rights of third parties or -what is the same- of general interests of such an entity that should prevail over the right of parliamentarians".

"Parliamentary Dignity"

In the case examined, the Chamber considers that it is unnecessary to rule on the incidence of the requested information on personal data, which the Administration alleged in its first resolution, from the moment in which the second resolution (proposing the visit to the headquarters administrative) no longer saw such an obstacle.

For the Supreme Court, with the resolution of June 3, 2021, the State Attorney maintains that the claim of the plaintiff deputies has been satisfied extra-procedurally, by inviting them to arrange a visit to the Ministry of Territorial Policy and Public Function.

"Certainly the Administration does not deprive them of the required information but, apart from the fact that no reason is offered that prevents it from being sent directly, it is a response that does not match parliamentary dignity nor does it conform to the standard of assistance that can be deduced from article 109 of the Constitution; furthermore, it is not, in itself, an answer because far from giving them the information, it forces them to request that appointment so that they themselves are the ones who seek and obtain it", concludes the High Court.

The sentence, presented by Judge

annuls the two Government resolutions -of April 15 and June 3, 2021- and requires the Executive to deliver the information to the plaintiffs within a period not exceeding 30 days.

The Chamber recalls that on February 8 it has deliberated and voted on this and other jurisdictional appeals promoted by members of the Vox Parliamentary Group, against resolutions similar to the one now appealed, and advances that they have estimated the majority.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

• vox

• Justice

• supreme court

• Pedro Sanchez

Justice The Supreme ignores the resources of individuals who suffered escraches and coercion in the 'procés'

The gossip of the SalesasThe entry of a conservative judge in the court of pardons can change the majority on the resources

SpainThe Supreme confirms the exclusion of Vox from the electoral debates of Castilla y León

See links of interest

• Last News

• Elections Castile and Leon

• covid

• Ukraine

• Translator

• Work calendar 2022

• events

• How to do

• Alaves - Valencia CF

• Levante - Real Betis

• Real Sociedad - Granada CF

• Unicaja - Real Madrid

• Spanish - Barcelona