The Supreme Court forces Puertos de Tenerife to report the remuneration of a technical position



The Supreme Court (TS) has issued a ruling by which it obliges the Port Authority of Santa Cruz de Tenerife to provide information on the annual remuneration, university degree, functions and time that the position of head of Operational Development has been held. .

This position is an advisory body of the entity’s Navigation and Port Council, and the request has been made by the Transparency and Good Governance Council, after the National Court determined that there is no obligation to provide that information.

But the Supreme Court believes that there is an interest in knowing the qualifications and remuneration of a relevant public position, even if it is not trustworthy or freely appointed, which prevails over the possible indirect impact on the sphere of the holder’s personal data.

Puertos indicated that this information was accessible from the corresponding website, so the Supreme Court does not understand the refusal to provide it.

The Supreme Court ruling recalls that The port authorities, as public organizations, are subject to the transparency law, access to information and good governance.

The Supreme Court and the National Court agree that the head of the Operational Development area is not a managerial position, nor is he chosen by free designation, nor is he advisory or especially trusted personnel, but rather a technical position without the characteristics of being trustworthy. or free designation.

The National Court determined that the required data should not be provided, given that this position could not be considered a high-level managerial position that is accessed on a discretionary basis, but rather performs assistance and advisory functions.

But the Supreme Court maintains that the appealed ruling violated the doctrine in which it is held that the greater the discretion in the appointment or level of trust, the corresponding transparency requirements must correspond, which did not occur in this case.

The Supreme Court considers that the position is not occupied by any public official and is filled freely, as is the dismissal, and is not regulated by the agreement, so that the ruling of the National Court that denied the information is not applicable. .

Previously, it was determined that Puertos had to offer these same data with respect to the president and the director, insofar as the appointments are made outside of a public call that accredits the principles of merit and capacity.

The state organization maintains that the position of head of the Operational Development area is not high-level, nor managerial, nor trustworthy, but is occupied by a technician with defined functions, and access to their remuneration can be consulted on the corresponding page. website, with the limitations imposed by law.

The Supreme Court concludes that the requested information is relevant, given the outstanding public interest in knowing the functioning of the administrations, promoting transparency to allow their control over the use of funds.

The Supreme Court considers that the provision of this information should be the norm as a general criterion and that, therefore, it should be applied in this case.

“With respect to this position, reasons of public interest must prevail to know this information, all of this regardless of the employment nature of the relationship, the non-existence of a senior management contract and regardless of membership in the Navigation Council and Ports”, states the ruling.



Source link