On 21 October 2015, Civio — a non-profit organisation that lobbies to achieve real and effective transparency in institutions — made a formal request for information asking the Ministry of Defense to release the names of the passengers in official flights of high-ranking government officials. Did relatives travel in those flights? Which businessmen accompanied them? The Ministry of Defence refused, but, after two more complaints were presented, the Transparency Council urged the Ministry to release the information. The Ministry then took the issue to court. At first, the judge ordered to release the information, but the Ministry of Defense appealed. The last verdict of the National High Court, two years after the request was made, requires the Ministry of Defense to identify the people accompanying authorities in official trips, though with significant restrictions.

Leaving citizens blind

Among them, the most worrisome is the one that reinterprets the scope of the Law of Transparency. According to the National High Court, the Ministry of Defence’s refusal to provide information since 1976 “is legally justified (…) since the law that requires the release of information came into effect on 10 December 2014.” This, it continues, “does not prevent it from releasing information regarding all the people who have used Group 45 airplanes after this date.”

Thus, the court adds a limit that is not included in the Law of Transparency itself and that curtails people’s right to access to information. In other words, the National High Court’s interpretation implies leaving all citizens blind to all information created or gathered before December 2014, seriously undermining people’s right to access to information and institutional transparency.

If the law were applied as this decision reinterprets it, we would have been unable to know, among many other things, that the number of petitions for pardon has increased dramatically in Spain since 2010, while concessions have diminished; that Felipe VI’s coronation in June 2014 cost over 170,000 euros; or that only seven of the 47 police officers wounded in the 22M demonstrations — known as the Marches for Dignity — requested temporary discharge. Nor will we be able to obtain data that sheds light on the corruption cases we have learned about years later, information regarding the number of evictions during the hardest years, or documentation on the privatization of Health at its high point.

Ministry 'punishing' critics

As of today, the Ministry has not complied with the National High Court’s decision requiring it to release the information to Civio, and has taken the case to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, it recently provided a partial list of people accompanying official flights to the newspaper El País — not only does it not include every flight, but it also provides no data prior to December 2014, when the Law of Transparency came into effect. At Civio, we believe that the Ministry is thus “punishing” those who are taking its opacity to court, and that it is not the Administration’s prerogative to select to whom to provide information, especially in the light of a favourable legal decision.

In terms of transparency, and especially of political will within institutions, there is still much to be accomplished. Civil society has demanded this type of information even before the Right of Access to Information was recognized in Spain. And up to now, it had been able to obtain data prior to the law without problems. So we are fighting to continue doing so. The documentation on the case (resolutions, decisions, appeals…) is entirely public so it can be of use to any person or organisation. Citizens concerned with institutional opacity are using the hashtag #InformaciónEnPeligro to publicise this case. An important right is at risk and we must pass the word.

Story by Javier de Vega, Civio Foundation