Post by account_disabled on Feb 25, 2024 0:34:38 GMT -5
In its resolution, the Commission indicates that the Law of Transparency, Access to Public Information and Good Governance recognizes the right to request and obtain public information, by people individually or in the name and representation of a company, which can only be be denied or restricted for the reasons established by law. He adds that the limits “must always be interpreted restrictively for the benefit of this right and cannot be expanded by analogy”, they must “be applied with criteria of proportionality” and the Administration “ does not have discretionary power and must indicate in each case the reasons that justify it.”
In this case, according to the resolution Fax Lists consulted by Economist & Jurist , it is considered that the object of the initial claim procedure has disappeared, since the information has been delivered. “The successive requests for clarifications raised by the complainant are intended to understand or comprehend the information already provided , they are not exactly the object of a claim, in the sense of requesting access to public information, in the terms described in article 39.1. of the LTAIPBG", so "it is not appropriate to admit this point raised by the claimant."
The right of access to public information protects the right to be able to obtain it, as has happened in this case, but it does not encomp the right to receive explanations about its content, no matter how complex and/or technical the information received may be. This issue, much closer to a didactic or advisory function than in access to public information (...) pes the object of the right of access to public information."
Likewise, it points out that "given the technical nature of the information requested by the complainant, it would not appear that the information sent by the Administration was not adjusted or proportional", so they believe that the right has been satisfied although, it recognizes that “To understand the scope of the information received and that it corresponds to that initially requested, “ some knowledge in this area is really required .”
In this case, according to the resolution Fax Lists consulted by Economist & Jurist , it is considered that the object of the initial claim procedure has disappeared, since the information has been delivered. “The successive requests for clarifications raised by the complainant are intended to understand or comprehend the information already provided , they are not exactly the object of a claim, in the sense of requesting access to public information, in the terms described in article 39.1. of the LTAIPBG", so "it is not appropriate to admit this point raised by the claimant."
The right of access to public information protects the right to be able to obtain it, as has happened in this case, but it does not encomp the right to receive explanations about its content, no matter how complex and/or technical the information received may be. This issue, much closer to a didactic or advisory function than in access to public information (...) pes the object of the right of access to public information."
Likewise, it points out that "given the technical nature of the information requested by the complainant, it would not appear that the information sent by the Administration was not adjusted or proportional", so they believe that the right has been satisfied although, it recognizes that “To understand the scope of the information received and that it corresponds to that initially requested, “ some knowledge in this area is really required .”