They remain silent until AZLP tells them to answer.

This year, as has been the case since 2019, the trend of the administration's silence on requests for free access to information (FOI) has continued, and it has been observed that there are still abuses in the form of a large number of requests being submitted in a short period of time that cannot be responded to in a timely manner, which leads to the collection of costs, which amount to up to 2.000 euros per case.

This is stated, among other things, in the Analysis of the Situation in the Field of SPI in the First Half of 2025, published by the Agency for Data Protection and Free Access to Information (AZLP).

In the decision-making process on complaints filed in the first half of 2025, the Agency Council, as the document states, noticed new practices of active submission of requests for SPI from new NGOs.

"Which, in a short period of time, submit requests to a large number of persons obliged to apply the Law on SPI, requesting documentation that requires the processing of a larger volume of information for a longer period of time. An analysis of the total number of complaints filed confirms the continued existence of a large trend of silence on the part of the administration of first-instance bodies, which often wait for a decision from the Agency Council in their actions, which orders them to act on the submitted request within 15 days of receiving the decision," it states.

The Council decided on 2.585 cases in the first half of the year. A total of 1.320 appeals were filed and decided, of which 858 were upheld due to the administration's silence.

Last year, 2.374 complaints were approved on this basis, compared to 1.488 the year before. In 2022, the AZLP Council approved 882 complaints due to the silence of the administration, 2021 in 1.702, 1.002 the year before, while in 2019, 543 complaints were approved due to the silence of the administration.

The Council rejected 213 applications, because it was determined that there was no silence, and issued 249 decisions suspending the procedure.

The Council also states that first-instance bodies very often resort to deciding on requests that are not requests for a CFI through the prism of the Law on CFI, "without giving the parties the right to obtain evidence in the form of documents for the purpose of conducting other proceedings and exercising their own rights."

The analysis, among other things, states that during the decision-making process, the Agency Council noticed "that a lawyer representing over 15 parties is committing abuse by submitting a large number of requests for SPI on a weekly basis":

"In a way that first-instance authorities are unable to make timely decisions in cases, which ultimately results in the collection of administrative dispute costs after the administrative dispute is concluded before the Administrative Court," they state, adding that "the purpose of the requested information is not its own meaning and goal, but the collection of costs for hiring a lawyer."

"Which, based on the attorney's fee, often reaches around 2.000 euros per case. In the proceedings in which it established the validity of the abuse of the right to SPI, the Agency's Council supported the legal position of the Ministry of Public Administration, which determined that the applicant, by submitting repetitive requests in a short period of time, committed an abuse of rights... and a court epilogue in this specific administrative matter is expected in the coming period."

The AZLP Council added that abuse of the right to SPI "should be the demarcation line between the public's right to know and the right of individuals or organizations to obtain funds through the collection of administrative dispute costs."

"The amounts of which are not negligible. The funds allocated to cover the costs can find a better purpose in the public interest."

Information should be online and easily accessible.

In the first half of this year, the Agency's information system registered 1.942 entities subject to the STI Law. The controllers reportedly conducted supervision of 49 supervised entities.

"With the aim of increasing proactivity in publishing information on websites," the Agency states, adding that "easy searchability and accessibility of the requested information" is the standard on which they base their inspection supervision, and that this ultimately determines whether users of requests for SPI should contact the person liable to the Law, "especially at the level of local governments due to different methods of organization and jurisdiction."