Spanish Supreme Court opens the door to finding out what the Labour Inspectorate investigated before closing a complaint
Receiving notice that a complaint has been closed after reporting a competitor’s employment irregularities no longer necessarily means being left without answers. In judgment 1033/2026, the Spanish Supreme Court held that the duty of confidentiality of the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate does not justify a blanket refusal to disclose information on the steps taken, and that the complainant’s request must, as a general rule, be resolved within one month. Elena Rubio, Partner in Toda & Nel-lo’s Employment practice, has discussed the practical implications of the ruling for self-employed professionals and SMEs in Diario Autónomos y Emprendedores.
As she explains, the process begins with a request for access to public information addressed to the body holding the documentation. The request should identify the complaint and specify what is being sought (inspection visits, information requests, checks, reports or the closure decision itself), with no need to explain why the information is wanted. In any event, the request concerns access to existing documentation, not a fresh investigation. Where the authorities rely on data protection grounds, they must give reasons for any restriction and grant partial access wherever possible. In the event of a refusal, an incomplete reply or no response at all, a complaint may be lodged with the Council for Transparency and Good Governance, a procedure that requires neither a lawyer nor a filing fee.
Ms Rubio also highlights the limits of the ruling: recognising the right of access neither sets aside the closure decision nor requires the investigation to be reopened, nor does it in itself give the complainant standing to appeal against it. Where new facts or previously unexamined evidence come to light, the appropriate course is to bring them to the Inspectorate’s attention or to file a new, well-founded complaint, whose prospects will depend on the available evidence and the applicable limitation periods.
The full article is available at the following link: