Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 2:24:56 GMT -5
The Transparency and Good Governance Council has rejected the complaint made by a citizen who could not access the electronic judicial file "for two years" because between the last request addressed to the Ministry of Justice for that purpose and the claim sent to the Council indicating that They did not allow him access to certain information, the minimum period of one month established in the Law on Transparency and Access to Information and Good Governance (LTAIBG) had not passed .
The citizen sent a message to the ministry on June 30 of this year, stating that "he was once again requesting access to the judicial file, for having the right to access the updated court proceedings," given that he was not given access in another case. application sent four months earlier. This person Fax Lists is involved in a judicial proceeding, the investigation of which has already lasted two years. Two years in which he “has been enduring the access violation (…). He sweats them all. They make me go from Madrid to Ciudad Real with a pendrive to pick up a copy of what belongs to me by right. Justice issues official letter of right of access to the Acceda system. They neither open it nor respect it, the law is theirs by the hell,” writes the affected person.
The Council indicates that, according to article 12 of the LTAIBG, the material scope of the right covers both documents and specific content and extends to all types of “format or support” . And it adds that, as a general rule, the information is in the possession of the Public Administration and has been prepared or obtained by it in the exercise of its functions, "the competent body must grant access to the requested information, unless justified. clearly and sufficiently the concurrence of a cause of inadmissibility or the application of a legal limit.”
The claimant provides an order from the Court of Instruction of Ciudad Real that is handling the case in which it is ensured that " due to the type of procedure, the electronic headquarters does not allow direct communication and notification with the citizen, not being a cause attributable to this body. " or other service of this judicial headquarters.” He also clarified that the resolutions had been notified “in legal form (…) to the designated lawyer.”
The action of the Transparency Council " is limited to the lack of response to the request for access to the electronic judicial file addressed to the General Directorate of Digital Transformation of the Administration of Justice of the Ministry of Justice sent on June 30." Regardless of whether there was a prior request, the ministry focuses on the one from which the claim derives and states that only one week has passed between the request and the claim. “Therefore (it has been presented) prematurely as the month provided for in article 20 of the LTAIBG has not elapsed for the competent body to dictate and notify the resolution that grants or denies access to the requested information,” concludes the Council, which ends up rejecting this claim.
The citizen sent a message to the ministry on June 30 of this year, stating that "he was once again requesting access to the judicial file, for having the right to access the updated court proceedings," given that he was not given access in another case. application sent four months earlier. This person Fax Lists is involved in a judicial proceeding, the investigation of which has already lasted two years. Two years in which he “has been enduring the access violation (…). He sweats them all. They make me go from Madrid to Ciudad Real with a pendrive to pick up a copy of what belongs to me by right. Justice issues official letter of right of access to the Acceda system. They neither open it nor respect it, the law is theirs by the hell,” writes the affected person.
The Council indicates that, according to article 12 of the LTAIBG, the material scope of the right covers both documents and specific content and extends to all types of “format or support” . And it adds that, as a general rule, the information is in the possession of the Public Administration and has been prepared or obtained by it in the exercise of its functions, "the competent body must grant access to the requested information, unless justified. clearly and sufficiently the concurrence of a cause of inadmissibility or the application of a legal limit.”
The claimant provides an order from the Court of Instruction of Ciudad Real that is handling the case in which it is ensured that " due to the type of procedure, the electronic headquarters does not allow direct communication and notification with the citizen, not being a cause attributable to this body. " or other service of this judicial headquarters.” He also clarified that the resolutions had been notified “in legal form (…) to the designated lawyer.”
The action of the Transparency Council " is limited to the lack of response to the request for access to the electronic judicial file addressed to the General Directorate of Digital Transformation of the Administration of Justice of the Ministry of Justice sent on June 30." Regardless of whether there was a prior request, the ministry focuses on the one from which the claim derives and states that only one week has passed between the request and the claim. “Therefore (it has been presented) prematurely as the month provided for in article 20 of the LTAIBG has not elapsed for the competent body to dictate and notify the resolution that grants or denies access to the requested information,” concludes the Council, which ends up rejecting this claim.