Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Essentials of the Right of Access to Public Information: An Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Right of Access to Public Information

Abstract

The first freedom of information law was enacted in Sweden back in 1766 as the “Freedom of the Press and the Right of Access to Public Records Act”. It sets an example even today. However, the “triumph” of the freedom of information did not take place until much later. Many western legal systems arose from the American Freedom of Information Act, which was signed into law by President L.B. Johnson in 1966. This Act obliges all administrative authorities to provide information to citizens and imposes any necessary limitations. In an exemplary manner, it standardizes the objective of administrative control to protect citizens from government interference with their fundamental rights. Over 100 countries around the world have meanwhile implemented some form of freedom of information legislation. The importance of the right of access to information as an aspect of transparency and a condition for the rule of law and democracy is now also becoming apparent in international treaties at a regional level. This article provides an overview on the crucial elements and the guiding legal principles of transparency legislation, also by tracing back the lines of development of national and international case-law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ackermann & Sandoval-Ballestros 2006, p. 88.

  2. 2.

    In European constitutional law the term “government” refers to the collegial body of the government which forms in accordance with the constitutional requirements the head of the executive branch (government in the institutional sense), or to one governmental branch as a whole, i.e., the executive branch (the national government agencies), in so far as it is entrusted with basic issues of the state (government in the sense of effective power to govern). In the American legal context, however, “government” means the legal system, i.e., an umbrella concept which refers to all three governmental branches, and the various political institutions of the state. This system provides a series of checks and balances because each branch is able to limit the power of the others. The U.S. executive branch consists of the President and the Vice-President, and government departments and agencies.

  3. 3.

    Freedom House, Report on the United States (Chapter: Political Rights and Civil Liberties), 2016 (Accessed on 20 October 2016).

  4. 4.

    Obama 2009; see also Orszag 2009.

  5. 5.

    Freedom House, Report regarding the U.S. (2014).

  6. 6.

    Article 21.1 of the Japanese Constitution, as interpreted by the Japanese Supreme Court, also protects “the freedom to gather news for informational purposes”; see Japanese Supreme Court, Kaneko v. Japan (Judgment of 26 November 1969), 23 Keishu 1490; quoted also by Peled & Rabin 2011, p. 373); see Kadomatsu and Rheuben (in this volume), Chap. 12, Sect. 2.1.

  7. 7.

    The Constitutional Court of Korea (2001). The first ten years of the Korean Constitutional Court, p. 132. Public Release. http://www.ccourt.go.kr/home/att_file/ebook/1255848884375.pdf.

  8. 8.

    See Indian Supreme Court, S. P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors. (Judgment of 30 December 1981), 1981 Supp SCC 87; Indian Supreme Court, Dinesh Trivedi, Union of India v. AS & Soacnioatthieorn for Democratic Reforms (Judgment of 2 May 2002), 2002 INSC 244; and Indian Supreme Court, People’s Union of Civil Liberties (P.U.C.L.) & Anr v. Union of India and Anr (Judgment of 13 March 2003), 2003 INSC 173.

  9. 9.

    Indian Supreme Court, Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd., v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (Judgment of 23 September 1988), 1988 (004) SCC 0592 SC, para. 3: “Right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age in our land under Article 21 of our Constitution.” See also Rao and Chingale, Chap. 9, Sect. 3.

  10. 10.

    Article 9.1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides: “Every individual shall have the right to receive information.”

  11. 11.

    Cf. the “Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa”, adopted by the African Commission in 2002, to supplement Article 9 of the African Charter which provides that “every individual shall have the right to receive information”. While the Declaration has expanded on States Parties obligations under the African Charter, it does not specifically provide guidance on the form and content of the legislation to be enacted to give effect to these obligations at the domestic level. In adopting the “Model Law on Access to Information for Africa”, the African Commission has therefore gone a step further than the Declaration, by providing detailed and practical content to the legislative obligations of Member States to the African Charter with respect to the right of access to information. This “Model Law” is available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/news/2013/04/d84/model_law.pdf.

  12. 12.

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.”

  13. 13.

    I/A Court H. R., Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile (Judgment of 19 September 2006), Series C No. 151, para 58 (a)-(b) (regarding the Commission’s arguments) and 77 (regarding the Court’s findings).

  14. 14.

    ECtHR, Leander v. Sweden (Judgment of 26 March 1987), Series A No. 116, para 74; ECtHR Társasága Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (Judgment of 14 April 2009), No. 37374/05, para 35 to 39, with reference to ECtHR, Chauvy and Others v. France (Judgment of 29 June 2004), ECHR 2004-VI, No. 64915/01, para 66.

  15. 15.

    See Declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of expression and information, adopted on 29 April 1982, as well as recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to Member States No. R (81) 19 on the access to information held by public authorities, No. R (91) 10 on the communication to third parties of personal data held by public bodies, No. R (97) 18 concerning the protection of personal data collected and processed for statistical purposes, No. R (2000) 13 on a European policy on access to archives and Rec (2002)2 on access to official documents.

  16. 16.

    Cf. the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (25 June 1992).

  17. 17.

    Principle 10 reads as follows: “Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment which is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.”

  18. 18.

    Under the title “Objective” Article 1 of the Aarhus Convention lays down: “In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.”

    Recitals 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention read as follows: “Recognizing also that every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, and the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

    Considering that, to be able to assert this right and observe this duty, citizens must have access to information, be entitled to participate in decision-making and have access to justice in environmental matters, and acknowledging in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights,

    Recognizing that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns […].”

  19. 19.

    “This Convention enters into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which 10 member States of the Council of Europe have expressed their consent to be bound by the Convention” (Article 16.3 of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents). It has been signed by five countries of the Council of Europe and ratified by nine as of 18 Sep. 2016, so it may be expected to enter into force soon.

  20. 20.

    See for example in Europe: Albania (Article 23 Const. 1998), Austria (Article 20. 3 and 20.4 Const. 1920), Belgium (Article 32 Const. 1831), Bulgaria (Article 41 Const. 1991 as amended through 2007), Estonia (Article 44 Const. 1992), Finland (Sec. 12 Const. 1999), Greece (Article 5A Const. 2001), Hungary (Article VI.2 Const. 2011), Macedonia (Articles 16.2, 16.3 and 18 Const. 1991), Moldova (Article 34 Const. 1994), Spain (Article 20 Const. 1978); en Latin America: Bolívia (Articles 21.6 e 242.4 Const. 2008), Brasil (Articles 5 XXXIII, 37 § 3 II, e 216 § 2 Const. 1988), Costa Rica (Article 30 Const. 1949), Equador (Articles 18.2 e 91 Const. 2008), Guatemala (Article 30 Const. 1993), Mexico (Article 6A Constitution 1917 as amended in Feb. 2016), Nicarágua (Article 66 Const. 1987), Panamá (Articles 43 e 44 Const. 1972), Paraguai (Article 28 Const. 1992), Peru (Articles 2.4 and 5 Const. 1993), Dominican Republic (Article 49.1 Const. 2010) and Venezuela (Article 143 Const. 1999); in Asia: Afghanistan (Article 50 Const. 2003), Armenia (Article 23, 27, 33.2 and 83.5 Const. 2005), Azerbaijan (Article 50 I, II and III Const. 1995), Georgia (Articles 24 and 41 Const. 1995 as amended in 2006), India (Article 19.1 Const.), Kazakhstan (Articles 18, 20 and 31 Const. 1995 as amended in 1998), Maldives (Article 27, 28 and 29 Const. 2008); in Africa, Burkina Faso (Article 8 and 101 Const. 1991), Cape Verde (Article 29 and 48 Constitution 2010), Democratic Republic of Congo (Article 24 Const. 2006), Egypt (Article 31 and 68 Const. 2014), Eritrea (Article 19.3 Const. 1997), Ethiopia (Article 29 Const. 1994), Ghana (Article 21 Const. 1992), Guinea Bissau (Article 34 Const. 1996), Kenya (Article 35 Const. 2010), Malawi (Article 37 Const. 1994); and in Oceania, Fiji (Articles 17, 24 and 25 Const. 2013).

  21. 21.

    See Sommermann 2010, p. 12, 19.

  22. 22.

    http://www.right2info.org/laws/constitutional-provisions-laws-and-regulations (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  23. 23.

    See Perlingeiro 2014, p. 2.414. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2416760. See also http://www.rti-rating.org/country-data (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  24. 24.

    http://www.rti-rating.org/by-indicator?indicator=1 (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  25. 25.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brasil (Judgment of 24 November 2010), Available at: http://bit.ly/1KdWmN3 (Accessed on 14 March 2016).

  26. 26.

    See Case Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. § 157.

  27. 27.

    Cf. “Ley General de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública”, Diario Oficial of the Mexican Federation of 4.5.2015.

  28. 28.

    Cf. “Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública”, Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina, available at: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/#!DetalleNorma/151503/null.

  29. 29.

    http://www.right2info.org/laws/constitutional-provisions-laws-and-regulations#nigeria (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  30. 30.

    http://www.right2info.org/laws/constitutional-provisions-laws-and-regulations#indonesia (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  31. 31.

    See Perlingeiro 2015.

  32. 32.

    Ackerman & Sandoval-Ballesteros 2006, p. 86 et seq.

  33. 33.

    Cf. the Explanatory Memorandum regarding the French “Digital Republic Law”; available at http://www.republique-numerique.fr/pages/digital-republic-bill-rationale (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  34. 34.

    European Commission, Creating Value through Open Data: Study on the Impact of Re-use of Public Data Resources (Capgemini Consulting), 2015: “Between 2016 and 2020, the market size of Open Data is expected to increase by 36.9%, to a value of 75.7 bn EUR in 2020.”

  35. 35.

    Woods 2012, p. 141.

  36. 36.

    Wiberg 2005, p. 1 et seqq.

  37. 37.

    For the principle of net neutrality cf. Müller 2015, http://verfassungsblog.de/staatliche-gewaehrleistung-der-informationsfreiheit-zwischen-netneutrality-und-notneutrality/#.VjuK_isXvpY (Accessed on 20 October 2016); Wimmer 2013, p. 642 et seqq. (regarding the development in the U.S. cf. p. 644 et seq., regarding the development in Europe cf. p. 645); for the three main strands of the French Digital Republic bill (champion data and knowledge dissemination, protecting individuals in the digital society, and providing universal access to digital technology) see the Explanatory Memorandum, available at http://www.republique-numerique.fr/pages/digital-republic-bill-rationale (Accessed on 20 October 2016).

  38. 38.

    Cf. the Law n° 2016-1321 of 7 October 2016 “pour une République numérique”, JORF n° 0235 of 8 October 2016, text n° 1, available at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000033202746&fastPos=5&fastReqId=725542329&categorieLien=id&oldAction=rechTexte (Accessed on 25 November 2016), see especially Article 18 quater and Article 47.1 of the bill: Article 18 quater – “Les outils numériques et de l’internet étant d’usage banalisé, les langages et logiciels facilement accessibles et leurs utilisations en ligne valorisées par les administrations et les pouvoirs publics, leur bon usage est promu, notamment auprès des mineurs et jeunes majeurs en formation, en fonction de leur âge et de leur maturité, et tout au long de la vie, afin que les opportunités comme les risques inhérents à l’usage de ces technologies puissantes soient connus de tous.” – Article 47.1 of this bill reads as follows: “Les services de communication au public en ligne des services de l’État, des collectivités territoriales et des établissements publics qui en dépendent ainsi que ceux des organismes délégataires d’une mission de service public doivent être accessibles aux personnes handicapées.”

  39. 39.

    See Sanz Salla 2010, p. 230.

  40. 40.

    The Rule by the Federal Communication Commission on 22 March 2018 is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/22/2018-03464/restoring-internet-freedom

  41. 41.

    Kang 2017, p. A1.

  42. 42.

    See the comparative legal analysis (France-Germany) published by Schnieders 2018, p. 177 et seqq., 180 et seqq.

  43. 43.

    Cf. the Explanatory Memorandum of the drafted bill; available at http://www.republique-numerique.fr/pages/digital-republic-bill-rationale.

  44. 44.

    Legislative Decree 25 May 2016, No. 97 on the review and simplification of the provisions on prevention of corruption, openness and transparency, amending Law of 6 November 2012, No. 190 and Legislative Decree of 14 March 14, 2013, No. 33, in accordance with Article 7 of Law of 7 August 2015, No. 124, on reorganisation public administrations, published in the Italian Official Gazette of 8 June 2016, No. 132.

  45. 45.

    See Gesetz zur Förderung der elektronischen Verwaltung (5 July 2017 - E-Government Act), German Federal Law Gazette 2017 p. 2206.

  46. 46.

    See the G8 Open Data Charter and Technical Annex (18.6.2013), available under https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-charter/g8-open-data-charter-and-technical-annex.

  47. 47.

    Cf. Netzpolitik.Org: “[…] Open-Data-Gesetz wird Luftnummer”, https://netzpolitik.org/2016/wir-veroeffentlichen-eckpunktepapier-open-data-gesetz-wird-luftnummer/ (Accessed on 14 December 2016).

  48. 48.

    European Parliament and the Council, Directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, Official Journal L 201, 31 July 2002, P. 0037 – 0047. In particular, Article 5(1) of that Directive provides that the Member States must ensure, by means of their national legislation, the confidentiality of communications effected by means of a public communications network and publicly available electronic communications services, and the confidentiality of the related traffic data.

  49. 49.

    This judgement is controversial. Cf. Puigpelat 2017, Sect. 4 who regards “a modern regulation on administrative transparency as a basic mechanism to try to restore the confidence of the Spanish citizens in their institutions”; according to Schoch 2016, Einleitung para 50 the threat of forced disclosure of records will trigger defense mechanisms. Instead, Schoch expects more effective detection of corruption through insiders in the public administrative authorities. That statement may apply to countries with an advanced administrative culture, such as Great Britain, France, Germany or the United States, but it is not unreservedly true of Latin American countries. The fight against corruption in Brazil shows that the population trusts the Judiciary alone to intervene effectively against corruption, which seems to have taken hold of the other branches of government like a cancer.

  50. 50.

    Transparency International (2017), http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 (Accessed on 30 January 2017).

  51. 51.

    Cf. Schoch 2016, Einleitung para 49.

  52. 52.

    Cf. Rossi 2004, p. 325 et seq. (point 2).

  53. 53.

    Kloepfer 2003, p. 221; Rossi 2004, p. 325 (points 4 and 5).

  54. 54.

    Schoch 2016, Einleitung para 53; Rossi 2004, p. 112 et seqq.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Rossi 2004, p. 325 et seq. (points 2, 6 and 7).

  56. 56.

    Rossi 2004, p. 334 (points 52, 53 and 49).

  57. 57.

    Article 1 Sole paragraph, item 1 of the Brazilian Law N°12.527/2011.

  58. 58.

    Zippelius, R. Teoría general del Estado. 5a ed. Cidade do México: Porrúa 2009, p. 179–180.

  59. 59.

    Mendel 2008, p. 143.

  60. 60.

    AG/RES. 2607 (XL-O/10).

  61. 61.

    Article 3 of the Model Inter-American Law.

  62. 62.

    Article 12.1 of the Model Law on Access to Information for Africa. The concept of “relevant private body” is defined in Article 1 of this Model Law and follows an approach similar to Article 3 of the Model Inter-American Law (totally or partially controlled or financed by public funds; carrying out a statutory or public function or a statutory or public service).

  63. 63.

    Principle 4 of this Declaration states: “Access to information held by the State is a fundamental right of every individual. States have the obligation to guarantee the full exercise of this right. This principle allows only exceptional limitations which must be previously established by law in case of a real and imminent danger that threatens national security in democratic societies.”

  64. 64.

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.” (Article 10.1 (2) ECHR).

  65. 65.

    See Barreto 2010, p. 276.

  66. 66.

    See Mendel 2007, p. 6.

  67. 67.

    I/A Court H. R., Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile (Judgment of 19 September 2006), Series C No. 151.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2015, p. 22; see also Article 4.1 of the Mexican General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information (2015): “The human right of access to information includes requesting, investigating, disseminating, seeking and receiving information.”

  69. 69.

    See footnote 9.

  70. 70.

    Argentina, Bolívia, Brasil, Chile, Colômbia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Equador, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Venezuela.

  71. 71.

    Cf. Rossi 2015, p. 48 et seqq., 57.

  72. 72.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay (Judgment of 31 August 2004), Série C N° 111, para 82.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica (Judgment of 2 July 2004), Série C N° 107, para 112.es.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Parecer Consultivo OC-5/85 de 13 de novembro de 1985. Série A N° 5. Para 70.

  73. 73.

    Cf. also Article 14 of the Brazilian Constitution: “The sovereignty of the people shall be exercised by universal suffrage and by the direct and secret voting” (emphasis added).

  74. 74.

    Rossi 2004, p. 289 et seqq., 334 (points 52, 53).

  75. 75.

    Cf. for example the relevant provisions on sanctions of the Mexican “Ley General de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública” (Articles 201–216), Diario Oficial of the Mexican Federation of 4.5.2016 and of the “Ley Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública” (Articles 174–206), Diario Oficial of the Mexican Federation of 9.5.2016.

  76. 76.

    Rossi 2004, p. 297 et seqq., 335 (point 61).

  77. 77.

    Ginsberg, W. & Greene, M. (2016), Access to Government Information in the United States: A Primer. Congressional Research Service, available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/97-71.pdf.

  78. 78.

    U.S. Supreme Court, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 160 (1927).

  79. 79.

    Barr (1989), p. 153 et seqq.; cf. also the survey in Fisher (2001).

  80. 80.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 3/07 (Judgment of 17 June 2009), BVerfGE 124, 78.

  81. 81.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 5/06 (Judgment of 1 July 2009). BVerfGE 124, 16.

  82. 82.

    Cf. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger 2015, p. 19 et seqq.; German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 253.

  83. 83.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 1/15 (Judgment of 13 June 2017), para 84 et seqq., 89 et seqq.

  84. 84.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/15 (Judgment of 13 October 2016), para 117, 120 et seq., http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2016/10/es20161013_2bve000215.html (Accessed on 9 May 2017).

  85. 85.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/15 (Judgment of 13 October 2016), para 121, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2016/10/es20161013_2bve000215.html (Accessed on 9 May 2017).

  86. 86.

    For more details Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.2

  87. 87.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 195 et seqq., 211 et seqq., 228

  88. 88.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 229 et seqq.

  89. 89.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 195 et seqq., 214, 216 et seqq.

  90. 90.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 214 et seqq.

  91. 91.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 232.

  92. 92.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 233

  93. 93.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 234.

  94. 94.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 235.

  95. 95.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 236.

  96. 96.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 244.

  97. 97.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 245.

  98. 98.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 246.

  99. 99.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 247.

  100. 100.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 249.

  101. 101.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 2/11 (Judgment of 7 November 2017) para 250.

  102. 102.

    Bauer 2005, p. 9; Sommermann 2005, p. 216 et seq., also sees parliamentary countermovements in some Member States of the EU; for the “increasingly compound and accumulated ‘order’ of executive power in contemporary Europe”; see also Curtin 2014, p. 206 et seqq.

  103. 103.

    Schoch (2016), § 1 para 82 et seq.; similarly, with regard to parliamentary groups, the Higher Administrative Court of Munich, Judgment of 22 April 2017, 2 BV 15.799, NVwZ 2016, p. 1107; with a critical view Waldhoff, JuS 2017, p. 284 et seqq.

  104. 104.

    German Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of 3 November 2011, Access to information, 7 C 3.11, BVerwGE 141, p. 122 et seqq.

  105. 105.

    Klein, in Maunz and Dürig (2014), Article 43 para 118; Schwanengel (2018), Teil C under “Die Kontrollinstrumente”.

  106. 106.

    Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages, 2015, WD 3 - 3000 - 293/15.

  107. 107.

    Klaaren, Currie & Smith 2000, p. 30.

  108. 108.

    Álvaro Herrero & Gaspar López (2010), Access to Information and Transparency in the Judiciary –A Guide to Good Practices from Latin America (first published in Spanish in 2009), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/213798-1259011531325/6598384-1268250334206/Transparency_Judiciary.pdf (Accessed on 20 October 2016).

  109. 109.

    Kant, I. (1795). Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Königsberg: F. Nikolovius (Ed.), translated in Reiss 1991, p. 126: “Alle auf das Recht anderer Menschen bezogenen Handlungen, deren Maxime sich nicht mit der Publizität verträgt, sind unrecht.” Reiss, however, translates “Recht” with the plural form “rights”.

  110. 110.

    O’Regan 2000, p. 13 et seq.

  111. 111.

    Cf. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger 2015, p. 25.

  112. 112.

    Article 1, principle 2 (“Transparency and maximum dissemination”) of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016 on the “Right of Access to Public Information”.

  113. 113.

    Schulzki Haddouti 2012, p. 187 et seqq.

  114. 114.

    Lessig 2009.

  115. 115.

    Schulzki Haddouti 2012, p. 198 et seq.

  116. 116.

    In its “Kalkar I” Judgment, the German Federal Constitutional Court, BVerfGE (Fed. Const. Ct. Judgments) 49, 89 (Judgment of 8 August 1978)) expressed the notion that in the German system of separation of powers fundamental and essential decisions must be taken by the legislators.

  117. 117.

    Cf. also regarding the following Kugelmann 2001, p. 35 et seqq.

  118. 118.

    German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), BVerwGE 74, 109 (Judgment of 21.03.1986) p. 112.

  119. 119.

    Cf. for this distinction Schmidt-Aßmann 1991, p. 329 et seqq.

  120. 120.

    Kallenhoff in Stelkens et al. (2018), Article 28 para 2.

  121. 121.

    Kugelmann 2001, p. 37.

  122. 122.

    Sobota 1997, p. 503.

  123. 123.

    Sec. 13.2 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act reads as follows: “The authority may ex officio or upon request involve as participants those whose legal interests may be affected by the result of proceedings. Where such result has a legal effect for a third party, the latter may upon request be involved in the proceedings as a participant. If the authority is aware of such third parties, it shall inform them that proceedings have commenced.”

  124. 124.

    Sec. 28 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act reads as follows: “(1) Before an administrative act affecting the rights of a participant may be executed, the latter must be given the opportunity of commenting on the facts relevant to the decision.

    (2) This hearing may be omitted when not required by the circumstances of an individual case and in particular when:

    1. an immediate decision appears necessary in the public interest or because of the risk involved in delay;

    2. the hearing would jeopardise the observance of a time limit vital to the decision;

    3. the intent is not to diverge, to his disadvantage, from the actual statements made by a participant in an application or statement;

    4. the authority wishes to issue a general order or similar administrative acts in considerable numbers or administrative acts using automatic equipment;

    5. measures of administrative enforcement are to be taken.

    (3) A hearing shall not be granted when this is grossly against the public interest.”

  125. 125.

    Sec. 29 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act reads as follows: “(1) The authority shall allow participants to inspect the documents connected with the proceedings where knowledge of their contents is necessary in order to assert or defend their legal interests. Until administrative proceedings have been concluded, the foregoing sentence shall not apply to draft decisions and work directly connected with their preparation. Where participants are represented as provided under Sections 17 and 18, only the representatives shall be entitled to inspect documents.

    (2) The authority shall not be obliged to allow the inspection of documents where this would interfere with the orderly performance of the authority’s tasks, where knowledge of the contents of the documents would be to the disadvantage of the country as a whole or of one of the Länder, or where proceedings must be kept secret by law or by their very nature, i.e., in the rightful interests of participants or of third parties.

    (3) Inspection of documents shall take place in the offices of the record-keeping authority. In individual cases, documents may also be inspected at the offices of another authority or of the diplomatic or consular representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany abroad. The authority keeping the records may make further exceptions.”

  126. 126.

    Cf. for ex. Kugelmann 2001, p. 37 with numerous references in footnote 39.

  127. 127.

    Masing 2003, p. 385.

  128. 128.

    Article 20.3 of the German Basic Law reads as follows: “The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.”

  129. 129.

    Article 37 (1) in Chap. VII (Public Administration) of the Brazilian Constitution reads as follows: “The governmental entities and entities owned by the Government in any of the powers of the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities shall obey the principles of lawfulness, impersonality, morality, publicity, and efficiency […]”, and also the following.

  130. 130.

    Rossi, 2004, p. 304 et seqq., 335 (point 58).

  131. 131.

    Regarding the legal situation in Germany (Article 20.1 Basic Law: “The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.”) cf. Schoch 2016, Einleitung para 84. No different conclusions can be drawn from the Brazilian Constitution (Articles 193 et seqq., especially Article 194: “Social welfare comprises an integrated whole of actions initiated by the Government and by society, with the purpose of ensuring the rights to health, social security and assistance.”).

  132. 132.

    Cf. also Article 170 and Articles 193 et seqq. of the Brazilian Constitution: “social well-being and justice”.

  133. 133.

    Cf. Kugelmann (2001), p. 38 et seq.

  134. 134.

    See e.g., Article 45 of the Model Inter-American Law, and most recently Article 8.2 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016.

  135. 135.

    Cf. Rossi 2004, p. 327 (points 12 and 13), p. 329 (point 20).

  136. 136.

    Cf. Article 6.4 subparagraph (A), item 1, sentence 2, of the Mexican Constitution: “En la interpretación de este derecho deberá prevalecer el principio de máxima publicidad.” [The principle of maximum disclosure shall prevail when interpreting this right.].

  137. 137.

    Cf., e.g., Article 5.1 (1) of the German Freedom of Information Law: “Access to personal data may only be granted where the applicant’s interest in obtaining the information outweighs the third party’s interests warranting exclusion of access to the information or where the third party has provided his or her consent.”

  138. 138.

    Regarding the German courts, especially the precedents of the Federal Constitutional Court and Federal Administrative Court, as well as the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg, see: Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger 2015, p. 24.

  139. 139.

    Cf. Schaar 2015 p. 31 regarding Sec. 5 of the German FIA.

  140. 140.

    Canadian Supreme Court, Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc. (Judgment of 03 November 2005), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141, 2005 SCC 62, para 76; cf. Guttman (2010), p. 199 et seqq. (219 et seq.).

  141. 141.

    Canadian Supreme Court, Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Judgment of 17 June 2010), 2010 SCC 23, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815 2010 SCC 23, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815, para 40.

  142. 142.

    Cf. in this regard Article 3 of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents.

  143. 143.

    Article 41 item (b) of the Model Inter-American Law.

  144. 144.

    Article 41 item (c) of the Model Inter-American Law.

  145. 145.

    Cf. Rossi 2004, p. 327 et seq. (point 15).

  146. 146.

    Available at https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/#!DetalleNorma/151503/null.

  147. 147.

    Article 1, principle 12 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016 in accordance with Article 54 of the Model Inter-American Law.

  148. 148.

    Article 1, principle 1 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016.

  149. 149.

    Article 1, principle 13 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016.

  150. 150.

    Pursuant to Article 5 of the Model Law for Africa “[…] any reasonable interpretation that favours the presumption of a right to access information must be preferred to any adverse or restrictive interpretation.”

  151. 151.

    Already in 2014, the Supreme Court of Argentina affirmed that the “obligation to guarantee access to information by constitutional norms is incumbent on the State” and that the Constitution “establishes that the right to access official information is a necessary condition in order to organize a democratic republic”; to provide effective guarantees for the right to information, it was doubtless necessary for “the State to enact an urgent law ensuring compliance with the principle of reasonableness and the applicable international principles on the subject, with exhaustive provisions regulating the manner in which the public authorities are required to satisfy that right”; see National Supreme Court of Justice, Argentina (Corte Suprema de Justicia de La Nación Argentina), CIPPEC c/ EN – M° Desarrollo Social – dto. 1172/03 s/amparo, Ley 16.986, Fallos C. 830. XLVI, 2014 (Judgment of 26 March 2014) para 32.

  152. 152.

    Regarding the “Right to Privacy” see for the first time Warren & Brandeis 1890.

  153. 153.

    “[…} the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages resulting from their violation is ensured” (Article 5, item 10 of the Brazilian Constitution).

  154. 154.

    “[…} habeas data shall be granted: a. to assure knowledge of personal information about the petitioner contained in records or data banks of government agencies or entities of a public character; b. to correct data whenever the petitioner prefers not to do so through confidential judicial or administrative proceedings” (Article 5, item 72 of the Brazilian Constitution).

  155. 155.

    “[…} all persons have the right to receive, from the public agencies, information of private interest to such persons, or of collective or general interest,…” (Article 5, item 33 of the Brazilian Constitution).

  156. 156.

    At this point, there is no need to examine the mainly theoretical issue of whether the right to freedom of information does not already exist, i.e., whether the “substantive area of protection” is not available at all, or whether the question does not arise until the stage of justification (within the analysis, whether the interference with this guaranteed right can be justified).

  157. 157.

    Article 41 item (a) of the Model Inter-American Law.

  158. 158.

    Cf., e.g., second paragraph of Article 5 bis of the Italian Law 33/2013 as amended by the Law Madia.

  159. 159.

    See regarding this definition of “personal data” Article 4 No. 1 of the General Personal Data Regulation of the EU.

  160. 160.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 370/07 and 1 BvR 595/07 (Judgment of 27 February 2008), para 198 et seq.

  161. 161.

    Britz 2009, p. 10.

  162. 162.

    Schoch 2016, Article 5 para 16.

  163. 163.

    Such as the freelance journalist and blogger Mario Sixtus; similarly, Mariana Weisband of Piratenpartei Deutschland.

  164. 164.

    Joined Cases 92/09 and 93/09 Volker and Markus Schecke and Eifert (ECJ 9 November 2010) para 48; see also Case 131/12 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (ECJ 13 May 2014) para 80.

  165. 165.

    European Commission (2012), Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, KOM (2012) 11, p. 2, 6.

  166. 166.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), BVerfGE (Fed. Const. Ct. Judgments) 65, 1 (Judgment of 15 December 1983), p. 41 et seq. – well-established case-law. Wieland 2000, p. 91; on the right to data protection as an element of the right to informational self-determination in Germany, cf. Deutlmoser & Filip 2015, para 6.

  167. 167.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 370/07 and 1 BvR 595/07 (Judgment of 27 February 2008), para 198 et seq., with a reference to the German Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 1550/03 (Judgment of 13 June 2007), NJW 2007, p. 2464 (2466).

  168. 168.

    Cf. Schaar 2015, p. 29.

  169. 169.

    Cf. especially Sections 6.1, 19 and 34 of the German Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz).

  170. 170.

    Cf. especially Sec. 4 g para 2, 2a of the German Federal Data Protection Act.

  171. 171.

    Cf. Schaar 2015, p. 29 et seq.

  172. 172.

    See Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, Official Journal L 281, 23/11/1995, p. 31 et seqq.

  173. 173.

    Article 7 point (f) of the Directive 95/46/EC reads as follows: “Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if: […] processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection under Article 1 (1).”

  174. 174.

    Regarding the conditions of a legitimate processing, Article 6.1 (2) GDPR reads as follows: “Point (f) of the first subparagraph shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.” Point (f) of Article 6.1 GDRP states: “Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies: […] processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.”

  175. 175.

    Article 86 of the General Data Protection Regulation reads as follows: “Personal data in official documents held by a public authority or a public body or a private body for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest may be disclosed by the authority or body in accordance with Union or Member State law to which the public authority or body is subject in order to reconcile public access to official documents with the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation.”

  176. 176.

    Albrecht & Jotzo 2017, p. 133 et seq.; Kühling & Martini 2016, p. 285 et seqq. and 295 et seqq.; Pauly in Paal & Pauly 2017, Article 86 para 2; Schulz & Heilmann in Gierschmann et al. 2018, Article 85 para 7; Schulz & Heilmann in Gierschmann et al. 2018, Article 86 para 5 et seqq.

  177. 177.

    Pauly in Paal & Pauly 2017, Article 86 para 2; Hoidn 2017, p. 273.

  178. 178.

    See Kühling & Martini et al. 2016, p. 296.

  179. 179.

    See Proust & Goossens, 2016, http://privacylawblog.fieldfisher.com/2016/france-adopts-digital-republic-law/.

  180. 180.

    See Perlingeiro 2015, p. 119–128.

  181. 181.

    Article 3 of the Model Inter-American Law.

  182. 182.

    Inter-American Juridical Committee of the OAS, Principles on the right of access to information (CJI/RES.147 – LXXIII-O/08), point 3.

  183. 183.

    Articles 9–14 of the Model Inter-American Law.

  184. 184.

    Article 9 of the Model Law for Africa.

  185. 185.

    Rossi 2004, p. 329 (point 20).

  186. 186.

    Rossi 2004, p. 329 (points 21, 22).

  187. 187.

    Rossi 2004, p. 331 et seq. (point 34).

  188. 188.

    Cf. Schaar 2015, p. 31 et seq.

  189. 189.

    Rossi 2004, p. 329 et seq. (point 23).

  190. 190.

    Fehling (2017), p. 82.

  191. 191.

    Inter-American Juridical Committee of the OAS, Principles on the right of access to information (CJI/RES.147 – LXXIII-O/08), point 5; see also the Report 2009 of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expressionof the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OAS), points 5.18 and 5.19.

  192. 192.

    On the subject of the lack of independent bodies as a cause of difficulties in developing a culture of transparency in Peru, see Burt & Cagley 2013.

  193. 193.

    Articles 31–44 of the Law on Access to Public Information of Chile.

  194. 194.

    Articles 51–60 of the Law on Access to Public Information of El Salvador.

  195. 195.

    Articles 8–11 of the Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information of Honduras.

  196. 196.

    Articles 8.3 and 8.4, 30, 37–42 of the Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information of Mexico.

  197. 197.

    Articles 19–29 of the Law 22275/216 of Argentina. As a federal institution within the Agency of Access to Public Information the Consejo Federal para la Transparencia(Federal Council for Transparency) was established “as a permanent interjurisdictional body for purposes of technical cooperation and harmonization of policies of transparency and access to official information” (Article 29 of Law 22275/216 of Argentina).

  198. 198.

    Articles 32–35 of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance of Servia. Articles 28–30 of the Access to Public Information Act of Slovenia. Chap. 5 of the Freedom of Information Act of Liberia 2010. Articles 12–14 of the Indian Act 22/2005. Articles 35–40 of the Freedom of Information Act of Antigua and Barbuda 2004. Articles 30–35 of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Character of Macedonia. Article 44 of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Right to Obtain Information.

  199. 199.

    See Perlingeiro 2016; see also Asimow 2015.

  200. 200.

    Article 6 of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, of 28 January 2003.

  201. 201.

    Article 8 of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (emphasis added).

  202. 202.

    Judgment and Separate Opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez regarding the Judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile (Judgment of 19 September 2006), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.pdf (Accessed on 26 October 2016).

  203. 203.

    Cf. Article 1, principle 15 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016 on the “Right of Access to Public Information”.

  204. 204.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 385/90 (Judgment of 27 October 1999), EuGRZ 2000, p. 167 (172).

  205. 205.

    Cf. Schoch 2016, Einleitung para 54, 283 et seqq., 287 et seq.

  206. 206.

    See Werner, DÖV 1959, p. 527.

  207. 207.

    Schulte 1995, p. 117.

  208. 208.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 385/77 (Judgment of 20 December 1979), BVerfGE (Fed. Const. Ct. Judgments) 53, 30 (73).

  209. 209.

    Cf. Kugelmann 2001, p. 48, 53 et seq.; Sec. 29 German Administrative Procedure Act and Sec. 25 of the Tenth Code of Social Law regarding the “exchange of information in administrative proceedings”; he is apparently referring primarily to legal norms outside of the transparency legislation, such as Sec. 29 of the German Administrative Procedure Act and Sec. 25 of the German Tenth Code of Social Law. Nevertheless, his line of argument is also applicable to transparency legislation.

  210. 210.

    Cf., e.g., Article 6.3 of the Mexican Constitution 1917 as amended in this regard in 2013: “The State shall guarantee access to information and communication technology, access to the services of radio broadcast, telecommunications and broadband Internet. To that end, the State shall establish effective competition conditions for the provision of such services.”

  211. 211.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 385/77 (Judgment of 20 December 1979), BVerfGE (Fed. Const. Ct. Judgments) 53, 30 (65 f.).

  212. 212.

    E.g., Article 19, Article 65.1 of the Brazilian Decree N° 7.724; Article 68 of the Mexican Decree passed into law in the Ley General de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública.

  213. 213.

    See Perlingeiro & Sommermann 2014, p. 1.

  214. 214.

    See Kugelmann 2001, p. 40 et seqq.

  215. 215.

    See Article 54 of the Model Inter-American Law in conjunction with Chap. 2 on “Exceptions from Disclosure”, point B of the “Commentary and Guide for Implementation” for this Model Law: “With respect to the invocation of private interests as grounds for denial of the right of access to information before a jurisdictional body or an information review committee, the organs of the Inter-American system have determined in their interpretation of Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights that the burden is on the state to justify a denial of access to information, not on the requester or the party to whom the information pertains.”

  216. 216.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvR 23/65 (Judgment of 14 December 1969), BVerfGE (Fed. Const. Ct. Judgments) 27, 297 (305); and 1 BvR 385/77 (Judgment of 20 December 1979), BVerfGE 53, 30 (60).

  217. 217.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvR 375, 53/60 and 18/65 (Judgment of 6 June 1967), BVerfGE 22, 49 (81); 2 BvR 1187/80 (Judgment of 8 July 1982), BVerfGE 61, 82 (110); and 2 BvF 2, 3, 4/83 and 2/84 (Judgment of 24 April 1985), BVerfGE 69, 1 (49).

  218. 218.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvR 827/79 (Judgment of 15 April 1980), BVerfGE 54, 86 (91). See Ramsauer, in Kopp & Ramsauer (2016), Article 28, para 3.

  219. 219.

    See for Article 6 of the ECHR Kallenhoff, in Stelkens et al. (2018), Article 28 para 2.

  220. 220.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 385/90 (Judgment of 27 October 1999), EuGRZ 2000, p. 167 (172).

  221. 221.

    For this need see, e.g., Case 28/08 P, European Commission v. Bavarian Lager (ECJ 29 June 2010) para 78, and Case 365/12 P, European Commission v. EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (ECJ 27 February 2014) para 63.

  222. 222.

    Case 28/08 P European Commission v. Bavarian Lager (ECJ 29 June 2010) para 49. A beer importer requested the minutes of a meeting among the Commission, the British government and the beer brewers association CBMC. The occasion of that meeting was a complaint that the beer importer in question, Bavarian Lager, which wanted to import German beer into Great Britain in bottles, had difficulties because of various rules favoring trade in draft beer, which Bavarian Lager considered to violate Article 34 TFEU (formerly Article 28 TEC).

  223. 223.

    Case 28/08 P, European Commission v. Bavarian Lager (ECJ 29 June 2010) para 78 et seq. As a result, the ECJ has approved the position of the Commission, and declared to be lawful “to reject the application for access to the full minutes of the meeting of 11 October 1996”; see Steinbeis 2010.

  224. 224.

    Case 365/12 P, European Commission v. EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG (ECJ 27 February 2014), para 64 et seqq.

  225. 225.

    Article 1, principle 12 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016 on the “Right of Access to Public Information”.

  226. 226.

    Joined Cases 293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland et al. (ECJ 8 April 2014) para 52; Case 362/14, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (ECJ 6 October 2015) para 92.

  227. 227.

    Case 362/14, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (ECJ 6 October 2015) para 94. Article 7 CFREU provides: “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.”

  228. 228.

    See Rossi 2015, p. 56, regarding the German Freedom of Information Act.

  229. 229.

    Rossi 2004, p. 326 (point 6); Rossi 2015, p. 49 et seq.

  230. 230.

    See http://www.acessoainformacao.gov.br/assuntos/relatorios-dados/relatorios-estatisticos/relatorios-estatisticos (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  231. 231.

    http://www.foia.gov/data.html?foia/Services/DataRequest.jsp?agencyName=NARA&requestYear=2015 (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  232. 232.

    See https://data.gov.au/dataset/freedom-of-information-statistics/resource/e835719d-856c-4e9f-a858-aa772c56dcbf (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  233. 233.

    See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486494/freedom-of-information-statistics-jul-sep-2015.pdf (Accessed on 29 October 2016).

  234. 234.

    Schoch 2016, Einleitung para 401.

  235. 235.

    Rossi 2015, p. 47.

  236. 236.

    Tillack 2015, p. 81.

  237. 237.

    Cf. the statistics of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior.

  238. 238.

    Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of 3rd December 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. This Regulation is applicable for all requests concerning the access to documents and registers of the Union which are filed by EU citizens and others when EU institutions are (exceptionally) implementing Union law.

  239. 239.

    Cf. Rossi 2015, p. 47. This finding provides further confirmation of the author’s well-grounded general skepticism towards the exaggerated expectations placed in transparency legislation and their “ideological excess ” (p. 48).

  240. 240.

    Fehling 2017, p. 82 with further references in footnote 30.

  241. 241.

    This finding put forward by Rossi in 2015, p. 45, which applies to the patchwork situation in German transparency legislation (Scherzberg and Solka, Chap. 7, Sects. 1 and 2) can be said to apply, with a grain of salt, on the level of international level and comparative law, despite the fact that the laws of many countries (especially outside the EU) are far more uniform thematically and in terms of the competent authorities.

  242. 242.

    See Articles 66 and 67 of the Model Inter-American Law. Pursuant to Article 88.1 of the Model Law for Africa “[a] person who with intent to deny a right of access to information (a) destroys, damages or alters information; (b) conceals information; (c) falsifies information or makes a false record; d) obstructs the performance by an information holder of a duty under this Act; (e) interferes or obstructs the work of the oversight mechanism; or (f) directs, proposes, counsels or causes any person in any manner to do any of the above, commits a criminal offence and is liable to a fine or imprisonment or both.” According to Article 88.2 of this Model Law “a financial penalty […] may be imposed each day until the request is received or determined”, for example (point d), “[w]here a person, without reasonable cause […] has given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information” (emphasis added). Regarding the constitutional foundations for the sanctions applicable to violations of transparency laws in Brazil and Mexico; cf. Huerta Ochoa, Chap. 19, Sects. 3 and 4; cf. also recitals 19, and 73 of the General Data Protection Regulation of the EU (GDPR).

  243. 243.

    Cf. recital 149 GDPR.

  244. 244.

    Cf. recital 148 GDPR.

  245. 245.

    Cf. Article 84.1 (2) GDPR.

  246. 246.

    Cf. recital 148 GDPR.

  247. 247.

    This view is also shared by Schoch 2016, Einleitung para 404 et seq.

  248. 248.

    Mendel 2008, p. 152.

  249. 249.

    Mendel 2008, p. 153.

  250. 250.

    European Commission, COM(2018) 218 final of 23.4.2018, p. 2 et seq.

  251. 251.

    http://www.rti-rating.org/country-data. Accessed on 31 December 2017.

  252. 252.

    http://www.rti-rating.org/methodology. Accessed on 29 October 2016. This explains why, despite the good placement of South Africa in the RTI ranking, the Shadow Report (2016) has come to the result that 46% of requests submitted to the South African government were refused – i.e. no information was provided. 58% of these refusals were deemed refusals – i.e. the requests were ignored. The Shadow Report is available at http://www.r2k.org.za/wp-content/uploads/CER-Shadow-Report-2016-Final.pdf (Accessed on 1st January 2018).

  253. 253.

    It is also important to note that, while openness extends to factors beyond the legal framework for RTI, a strong legal framework is an important pre-requisite to full implementation of the right analysed in this publication.

  254. 254.

    Boletín Oficial del Estado/Official Gazette of 10 December 2013, p. 97922.

  255. 255.

    Puigpelat 2017, especially Sects. 1, 4.1. and 5.

  256. 256.

    See Galetta 2016.

  257. 257.

    Snell 2007, p. 14.

  258. 258.

    Rabin & Oeled 2005.

  259. 259.

    Terrill 2007, p. 37.

  260. 260.

    See the Law on transparency (“Transparenzgesetz”) which the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg has adopted in 2012; see Hamburger Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt of 6.7.2012, p. 271; regarding the above evaluations cf. Schaar 2015, p. 30, 33, regarding the German Freedom of Information Act; an evaluation of the Hamburg Transparency Law can be found in the contribution of Herr et al. (2018), p. 168 et seqq.

  261. 261.

    Loi n°2016-1321 pour une République numérique.

  262. 262.

    See Gesetz zur Förderung der elektronischen Verwaltung (5 July 2017 - E-Government Act), German Federal Law Gazette 2017 p. 2206.

  263. 263.

    See Article 3 and Chap. II of the Spanish Law 9/2013 on transparency, access to public information and good governance; cf. Mir Puigpelat 2017, Sect. 4.2.

References

  • Ackermann, J. M., & Sandoval-Ballesteros, I. E. (2006). The global explosion of freedom of information laws. Administrative Law Review, 58, 85–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, J. P., & Jotzo, F. (2017). Das neue Datenschutzrecht der EU. Grundlagen, Gesetzgebungsverfahren, Synopse. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asimow, M. (2015). Five models of administrative adjudication. Forthcoming American Journal of Comparative Law, 63. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2502210.

  • Barr, W. P. (1989). Congressional requests for confidential executive branch information. Memorandum opinion for the General Counsel’s Consultative Group. In Office of Legal Counsel, FBI Authority to Seize Suspects Abroad (Hearing). Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.justice.gov/file/24236/download

  • Barreto, I. C. (2010). A Convenção Europeia dos direitos do homem anotada. Coimbra, Portugal: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, H. (2005). Demokratie in Europa – Einführende Problemskizze. In H. Bauer, P.M. Huber, & K.-P. Sommermann (Eds.), Demokratie in Europa (p. 1–20). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britz, G. (2009). Europäisierung des grundrechtlichen Datenschutzes? Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift (EuGRZ), 36, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, J.-M., & Cagley, C. (2013). Access to information, access to justice: The challenges to accountability in Peru. SUR International Journal on Human Rights, No. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D. (2014). Challenging executive dominance in European democracy. In C. Joerges & C. Glinski (Eds.), The European crisis and the transformation of transnational governance. Authoritarian managerialism versus democratic governance (pp. 203–226). Oxford, England: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutlmoser, R., & Filip, A. (2015). In T. Hoeren et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Multimedia-Recht (Part 16.6). München, Germany: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag – Wissenschaftliche Dienste (Research Services of the German Bundestag), 2015: Das Akteneinsichtsrecht als Auskunftsrecht des einzelnen Abgeordneten, Report No. WD 3 – 3000 – 293/15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehling, M. (2017). Freier Informationszugang zwischen öffentlichen und privaten Interessen. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl), 132, 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, L. (2001). Congressional access to executive branch information: Legislative tools. The Library of Congress. Washington, U.S. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30966.pdf

  • Galetta, D. (2016). Accesso civico e trasparenza della Pubblica Amministrazione alla luce delle (previste) modifiche alle disposizioni del Decreto Legislativo n. 33/2013. Federalism.it.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gierschmann, S., Schlender, K., Strentzel, R., & Veil, W. (2018). Kommentar Datenschutzgrundverordnung. Köln, Germany: Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, D. (2010). Criminal Lawyers’ Assn. v. Ontario: A limited right to government information under Section 2(b) of the charter. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, No. 51, 199 et seqq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herr, M., Müller, C. E., Engewald, B., & Ziekow, J. (2018). Transparenzgesetzgebung in Deutschland in der Bewährung - Erfahrungen einer Gesetzesevaluation. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV), 71, 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoidn, D. (2017). Informationsfreiheit. In A. Roßnagel (Ed.), Europäische Datenschutz-Grundverordnung. Vorrang des Unionsrechts – Anwendbarkeit des nationalen Rechts (pp. 269–276). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2015). Acceso a la información, violencia contra las mujeres y la administración de justicia en las Américas. Costa Rica: OEA. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from http://bit.ly/1OrOPIQ

  • Kang, C. (2017). F.C.C. reverses rules requiring net neutrality. The New York Times, 15.12.2017 (p. A1). Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

  • Klein, H. D. (2014). Artikel 43. In T. Maunz & G. Dürig (Eds.), Grundgesetz Kommentar (Lose-leaf, 80. Suppl. 2017). München, Germany: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaaren, J., Currie, I., & Smith, A. (2000). Analysing foreign access to information legislation from a South African Viewpoint. In Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Ed.), The constitutional right of access to information (pp. 29–40). Retrieved February 9, 2017, from http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_4936-1522-2-30.pdf?040625152235

  • Kloepfer, M. (2003). Informationszugangsfreiheit und Datenschutz: Zwei Säulen des Rechts der Informationsgesellschaft. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV), 56, 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, F. O., & Ramsauer, U. (2016). Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz. Kommentar. München, Germany: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugelmann, D. (2001). Die informatorische Rechtsstellung des Bürgers. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühling, J., Martini, M. et al. (2016). Die DSGVO und das nationale Recht. Münster, Germany: Monsenstein und Vannerdat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2009, October 9). Against transparency. The perils of openness in government. New Republic. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from https://newrepublic.com/article/70097/against-transparency

  • Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, S. (2015). Ein paradigmatischer Wandel vom Amtsgeheimnis zum gläsernen Staat? In H. H. von Arnim (Ed.), Transparenz contra Geheimhaltung in Staat, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft (pp. 13–26). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masing, J. (2003). Transparente Verwaltung – Konturen eines Informationsverwaltungsrechts. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer, 63, 377–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, T. (2007). Access to information. In E. Villanueva (Ed.), Derecho de la información (pp. 3–12). México City: UNAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, T. (2008). Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/26159/12054862803freedom_information_en.pdf/freedom_information_en.pdf

  • Mir Puigpelat, O. (2017). Access to public information in Spanish Transparency Law: The chronicle of a paradigm shift. Revista catalana de dret públic (RCDP), 55, p. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Regan, K. (2000). Democracy and access to information in the South African Constitution: Some reflections. Analysing foreign access to information legislation from a South African viewpoint. In Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Ed.), The constitutional right of access to information (pp. 29–40). Retrieved February 13, 2017, from http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_4936-1522-2-30.pdf?040625152235

  • Obama, B. (2009). Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. Issued on 21 January 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orszag, P. R. (2009). Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Open Government. Issued on 8 December 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paal, B. P., & Pauly, D. A. (2017). Datenschutz-Grundverordnung. Kommentar. München, Germany: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peled, R., & Rabin, Y. (2011). The constitutional right to information. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 42, 357–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlingeiro, R. (2014). Information access laws in the world: Compilation of national laws, legislative bills and model codes on the right of access to the official Information. Niterói, Brazil: Eduff. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2416760

  • Perlingeiro, R. (2015). The codification of the right of access to information in Latin America. Páginas A&B: Arquivos e Bibliotecas. 3ª Série, n. 3, 119–128. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2441585

  • Perlingeiro, R. (2016). A historical perspective on administrative jurisdiction in Latin America. Continental European Tradition vs. US Influence. British Journal of American Legal Studies – BJALS, 5(1), 241–289. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2592418

  • Perlingeiro, R., & Sommermann, K.-P. (2014). Euro-American model code of administrative jurisdiction: English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish Versions. Niterói, Brazil: Editora da UFF. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2441582

  • Proust, O., & Goossens, G. (2016). France adopts Digital Republic Law. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://privacylawblog.fieldfisher.com/2016/france-adopts-digital-republic-law/

  • Rabin, Y., & Oeled, R. (2005). Between FOI law culture: The Israeli experience. Open Government: A Journal on Freedom of Information, 1, 1–30. Retrieved September 23, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=777244

  • Rossi, M. (2004). Informationszugangsfreiheit und Verfassungsrecht. Zu den Wechselwirkungen zwischen Freedom-of-information laws und der Verfassungsordnung in Deutschland. Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, M. (2015). Informationsfreiheit – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. In H. H. von Arnim (Ed.), Transparenz contra Geheimhaltung in Staat, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft (pp. 43–58). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz Salla, C. O. (2010). El derecho a la información administrativa en la era digital: una aproximación al derecho norteamericano. In R. García Macho (Ed.), Derecho administrativo de la información y administración transparente (pp. 203–230). Madrid, Spain: Marcial Pons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaar, P. (2015). Zwischen Öffentlichkeit und Datenschutz. In H. H. von Arnim (Ed.), Transparenz contra Geheimhaltung in Staat, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft (pp. 27–34). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnieders, R. (2018). Die neue Open-(Government)-Data-Gesetzgebung in Frankreich und in Deutschland. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV), 71, 175–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann, E. (1991). Verwaltungslegitimation als Rechtsbegriff. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 116, 329–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoch, F. (2016). IFG. Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Kommentar. München, Germany: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, M. (1995). Schlichtes Verwaltungshandeln. Verfassungs- und verwaltungsrechts dogmatische Strukturüberlegungen am Beispiel des Umweltrechts. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulzki Haddouti, C. (2012). Wikileaks und das Ideal der Öffentlichkeit. In U. Herb (Ed.), Open Initiative; Offenheit in der digitalen Welt und Wissenschaft (p. 185 et seqq). Saarland, Germany: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwanengel, W. (2018). Das Parlament im Gefüge der Staatsorganisation. Ein Studien- und Handbuch. LIT-Verlag: Münster, Germany (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, R. (2007). Freedom of information analysis. In E. Villanueva (Ed.), Derecho de la Information (pp. 13–52). Mexico City, Mexico: UNAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobota, K. (1997). Das Prinzip Rechtsstaat. Verfassungs- und verwaltungsrechtliche Aspekte. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommermann, K.-P. (2005). Demokratiekonzepte im Vergleich. In H. Bauer, P. M. Huber, & K.-P. Sommermann (Eds.), Demokratie in Europa (pp. 191–221). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommermann, K.-P. (2010). La exigencia de una Administración transparente en la perspectiva de los principios de democracia y del Estado de Derecho. In R. García Macho (Ed.), Derecho administrativo de la información y administración transparente (pp. 12–19). Madrid, Spain: Marcial Pons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbeis, M. (2010). EuGH zieht Informationsfreiheit in der EU die Zähne. Verfassungsblog. Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://verfassungsblog.de/eugh-zieht-informationsfreiheit-der-eu-die-zhne/#.VeYRuUbz8oM

  • Stelkens, P., Bonk, H. J., & Sachs, M. (2018). Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz. Kommentar. München, Germany: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrill, G. (2007). Democratising secrecy? The characteristics and context of freedom of information legislation. Apud Rick Snell, Freedom of information analysis. In E. Villanueva (Ed.), Derecho de la Information (pp. 13–52). Mexico City, Mexico: UNAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillack, H.-M. (2015). Wer nutzt die Informationsfreiheit? In H. H. von Arnim (Ed.), Transparenz contra Geheimhaltung in Staat, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft (pp. 81–92). Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Supreme Court, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 160 (1927). Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html

  • Waldhoff, C. (2017). VGH München, 22.04.2016 - 5 BV 15.799: Staatsorganisationsrecht und Verwaltungsrecht: Landtagsfraktion als Inhaberin eines Informationsanspruchs. Juristische Schulung (JuS), 57, 284–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(193). Retrieved October 29, 2016, from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, F. (1959). Verwaltungsrecht als konkretisiertes Verfassungsrecht. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 64, 527–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiberg, M. (2005). The emerging interaction society. In M. Wiberg (Ed.), The interaction society: Practice, theories and supportive technologies (pp. 1–25). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wieland, J. (2000). Freedeom of information. In C. Engel & K. H. Keller (Eds.), Governance of global networks in the light of differing local values (pp. 83–104). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, N. (2013). Netzneutralität – Eine Bestandsaufahme. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM), 57, 641–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, L. (2012). User generated content: Freedom of expression and the role of the media in a digital age. In M. Amos, J. Harrison, & L. Woods (Eds.), Freedom of expression and the media (pp. 141 et seqq.). Leiden, the Netherlands/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

List of Cases

    Canadian Supreme Court

    • Canadian Supreme Court 03.11.2005, Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 3 S.C.R. 141, 2005 SCC 62.

      Google Scholar 

    • Canadian Supreme Court, 17.06.2010, Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association, SCC 23, 2010 1 S.C.R. 815.

      Google Scholar 

    European Court of Human Rights

    • European Court of Human Rights 26.03.1987, Leander v. Sweden, Series A No. 116, Appl. No. 9248/81.

      Google Scholar 

    • European Court of Human Rights 29.06.2004, Chauvy and Others v. France, ECHR 2004 VI, Appl. No. 64915/01.

      Google Scholar 

    • European Court of Human Rights 14.04.2009, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, Appl. No. 37374/05.

      Google Scholar 

    European Court of Justice

    • European Court of Justice 29.06.2010, European Commission v. Bavarian Lager Co. Ltd., C-28/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:378.

      Google Scholar 

    • European Court of Justice 09.11.2010, Schecke and Eifert, C-93/09 and C-92/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:662.

      Google Scholar 

    • European Court of Justice 27.02.2014, European Commission v. EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, C-365/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:112.

      Google Scholar 

    • European Court of Justice 08.04.2014, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd., C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.

      Google Scholar 

    • European Court of Justice 13.05.2014, Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), C-131/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.

      Google Scholar 

    • European Court of Justice 06.10.2015, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, C-362/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650.

      Google Scholar 

    German Federal Constitutional Court

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 06.06.1967, Administrative Sanctions by Fiscal Authorities, 2 BvR 375, 53/60 and 18/65 (BVerfGE 22, p. 49).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 14.12.1969, Effectivity of Restorative Justice, 2 BvR 23/65 (BVerfGE 27, p. 297).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 08.08.1978, Kalkar I, 2 BvL 8/77 (BVerfGE 49, p. 89).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 20.12.1979, Mülheim-Kärlich, 1 BvR 385/77 (BVerfGE 53, p. 30).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 15.04.1980, Violation of the Right to be Heard, 2 BvR 827/79 (BVerfGE 54, p. 86).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 08.07.1982, Sasbach, 2 BvR 1187/80 (BVerfGE 61, p. 82).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 15.12.1983, Census of Population, 1 BvR 209 and others (BVerfGE 65, p. 1).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 24.04.1985, Conscientious Objection II, 2 BvF 2, 3, 4/83 and 2/84 (BVerfGE 69, p. 1).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 27.10.1999, Right to Inspect Records, 1 BvR 385/90 (EuGRZ 2000, p. 167).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 13.06.2007, Access to Account Master Data, 1 BvR 1550/03 and others (NJW 2007, p. 2464).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 27.02.2008, Fundamental Rights Protection against Infiltration of IT-Systems, 1 BvR 370/07 and 1 BvR 595/07 (BVerfGE 120, p. 274).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 17.06.2009, Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, Federal Intelligence Service, 2 BvE 3/07 (BVerfGE 124, p. 78).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 01.07.2009, Surveillance of Members of the Bundestag, 2 BvE 5/06 (BVerfGE 124, p. 16).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 13.10.2016, Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, NSA Selector List, 2 BvE 2/15.

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 13.06.2017, Answering two brief requests of information about the knowledge of the German intelligence services regarding the assassination attempt on the Munich Oktoberfest in 1980, 2 BvE 1/15.

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Constitutional Court 07.11.2017, Request of information by members of the German Parliament about the attack on the Munich Oktoberfest in 1980, 2 BvE 2/11.

      Google Scholar 

    German Federal Constitutional Court 07.11.2017, Request of information by members of the German Parliament about the attack on the Munich Oktoberfest in 1980, 2 BvE 2/11.German Federal Administrative Court

    • German Federal Administrative Court 21.03.1986, Expropriation, 4 C 48.82 (BVerwGE 74, p. 109).

      Google Scholar 

    • German Federal Administrative Court 03.11.2011, Access to information, 7 C 3.11 (BVerwGE 141, p. 122).

      Google Scholar 

    Higher Administrative Court of Munich

    • Higher Administrative Court of Munich 22.04.2017, Right of Access to Information of a Parliamentary Group, 2 BV 15.799 (NVwZ 2016, p. 1107).

      Google Scholar 

    Indian Supreme Court

    • Indian Supreme Court 30.12.1981, S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Orthers, (1981) Supp. SCC 87.

      Google Scholar 

    • Indian Supreme Court 23.09.1988, Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd., v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and others, 004 SCC 0592 SC.

      Google Scholar 

    • Indian Supreme Court 02.05.2002, Dinesh Trivedi, Union of India v. AS & Soacnioatthieorn for Democratic Reforms, 2002 INSC 244.

      Google Scholar 

    • Indian Supreme Court 13.03.2003, People’s Union of Civil Liberties (P.U.C.L.) & Another v. Union of India & Another, INSC 173.

      Google Scholar 

    Inter-American Court of Human Rights

    • Inter-American Court of Human Rights 19.09.2006, Claude Reyes, et al. v. Chile, Series C No. 151.

      Google Scholar 

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

    • Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 02.07.2004, Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Série C N° 107.

      Google Scholar 

    • Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 31.08.2004, Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Série C N° 111.

      Google Scholar 

    • Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 13.11.1985, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, Série A N° 5.

      Google Scholar 

    • Inter-American Court of Human Rights 24.11.2010, Case of Gomes Lund, et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, Retrieved April 14, 2016 from http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_219_ing.pdf.

    Japanese Supreme Court

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

      Hermann-Josef Blanke

    2. Fluminense Federal University and Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

      Ricardo Perlingeiro

    Authors
    1. Hermann-Josef Blanke
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Ricardo Perlingeiro
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Hermann-Josef Blanke .

    Editor information

    Editors and Affiliations

    1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

      Hermann-Josef Blanke

    2. School of Law, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brazil

      Ricardo Perlingeiro

    Additional information

    The author Hermann-Josef Blanke is responsible for Sects. 1, 2.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.2.1, 4.1.2.2, 4.1.2.3, 4.1.3, 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2.2, 6.5, 6.6, the author Ricardo Perlingeiro for Sects. 2, 4.1, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.2.2, and 7 of the following chapter. Both authors are responsible for Sects. 2.2, 2.3, 3, 7.1, 7.2 and 8.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

    About this chapter

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this chapter

    Blanke, HJ., Perlingeiro, R. (2018). Essentials of the Right of Access to Public Information: An Introduction. In: Blanke, HJ., Perlingeiro, R. (eds) The Right of Access to Public Information. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55554-5_1

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55554-5_1

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55552-1

    • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55554-5

    • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation