Abstract
The right of access to information has its origin in the right of freedom of speech, insofar as the latter includes the power to express ideas and opinions freely in a State based on the rule of law. In some Latin American constitutional systems, the right to access to information is expressly codified, for example in Article 5, items 14 and 33 and, related to the knowledge of personal information and the correction of personal data in official files, in the procedural guarantee of Article 5, item 72 (habeas data) of the Brazilian Constitution, further in Article 20 subparagraph (B), item 3 of the Mexican Constitution or in Articles 28 and 143 of the Venezuelan Constitution. Yet even constitutions, which do not expressly mention that right, may incorporate it through adherence to international conventions. In Argentina, for example, the right to access to information is now considered equivalent to a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right thanks to the country’s adherence to human rights conventions pursuant to Article 75.22 of the Constitution as amended in 1994, and it has repeatedly been interpreted as such in Argentinian Supreme Court judgments. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are binding, an innovative interpretation in international public law that is gradually being accepted in Latin American legal systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
López-Ayllon 2002, p. 472.
- 2.
Article 75.22 of the Argentinian Constitution reads as follows: “To approve or reject treaties concluded with other nations and international organizations, and concordats with the Holy See. Treaties and concordats have a higher hierarchy than laws. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ; the American Convention on Human Rights; the International Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights and its empowering Protocol; the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide; the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Woman; the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatments or Punishments; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; in the full force of their provisions, they have constitutional hierarchy, do no repeal any section of the First Part of this Constitution and are to be understood as complementing the rights and guarantees recognized herein. They shall only be denounced, in such event, by the National Executive Power after the approval of two-thirds of all the members of each House. In order to attain constitutional hierarchy, the other treaties and conventions on human rights shall require the vote of two-thirds of all the members of each House, after their approval by Congress.” (emphasis added)
- 3.
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.
- 4.
In the Latin American System, it was embodied, mainly, in Article 19.2 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, granting a wider protection to the right to information because it was understood as making up of the freedom of thought and speech. To protect these rights, it is necessary that the freedom of looping up, receiving and Spreading information and ideas of all types, without considering borders, either orally, in writing or printed or artistic, or by any other procedure of their choice.
- 5.
Cf. Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina, available at: https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/#!DetalleNorma/151503/null.
- 6.
Cf. Article 1 (principle 10) of Law 27275/2016.
- 7.
Vallefín 2009, p. 24 et seqq.
- 8.
“Limit the State and provide with security to the individual against it were two characteristics of that organization”. Bidart Campos 1996, p. 320.
- 9.
Casal 2010, p. 281.
- 10.
The term fundamental right is used for the first time in the German Constitution of Paulskirche, of 1848/9, in which it was understood as an element of the established constitutional system, of the corresponding National State, with independence of religious tenets or of natural law. Sommermann, in Casal 2010, p. xxv.
- 11.
Spielmann & Drzemczewski 2014.
- 12.
Article 1.1 of Law 27275/2016 reads as follows: “The purpose of this law is to ensure the effective exercise of the right of access to official information, to promote citizen participation and the transparency of public information [...]”. The different principles that regulate it, making it clear that it is not necessary to request motivation to have access to the requested information. It is applicable to all the national state level and an Agency of Access to Public Information will be established as a self-sufficient entity for the control of the implementation of the Law (Article 19 of Law 27275/2016).
- 13.
See Article 36 of Law 27275/2016: “Adhesion. The provinces and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires are called upon to adhere to the dispositions of the present law.”
- 14.
Together with Argentinian Law 25675/2002 on national environmental policy and Argentinian Law 26331/2007 on environmental protection of native woods.
- 15.
This regulation can be consulted in http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/20000-24999/22363/texact.htm (Accessed on 6.1.2017).
- 16.
These regulations will lose effects one year after the publication of Law 27275/2016 in the Argentinian Boletín del Estado (Article 38.2 of Law 27275/2016).
- 17.
It is worth highlighting the Argentinian Public Ethics Law (Argentinian Law 25188/1999), which sets forth the need to give publicity to the affidavits of public officials, recently modified by Law 26857/2013 and, more recently, Law 26856/2013, of publicity of judicial sentences stating that they are of public type, of free accessibility and will be able to be consulted by all interested people, free of charge through the Internet, according to the procedure which the regulation sets forth. Also “any other norm regulating the publicness of acts of government on the right of access to official information” will lose effects one year after the publication of Law 27275/2016 in the Argentinian Boletín del Estado (Article 38.2 of Law 27275/2016).
- 18.
Article 5, item 14, Article 37 para 3, item 2, and Article 216 para 2 of the Brazilian Constitution.
- 19.
Constitutional Section of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Ruth Carriles Méndez and others, Sentence N° 1050/00 (Judgment of 23 August 2000).
- 20.
Constitutional Section of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, INSACA Case, Sentence N° 332 (Judgment of 14 March 2001).
- 21.
Cf. Argentinian Law 19549/1972, of national administrative procedures as Sec. 38 of its Regulatory Decree 1759/1972, which read as follows: “The interested party, its representative or legal counsel will be able to access to administrative proceedings during the whole procedure, except those files, proceedings, reports or expert opinion which, on request from a competent body and previous advice of the corresponding legal service, if they were considered confidential or secret through reasoned decision of the corresponding assistant secretary of the ministry or of the head of the corresponding decentralized entity […}.”
- 22.
Referring to the Spanish administrative law, it has been stated that “The Administrative procedure” keeps debating, as, between publicity and secret, with a clear advantage for the latter, which, in its favour, plays the wish of administrators to ascertain freedom of movements which, in another case, they would lack” García de Enterría and Fernández 1983, T.II, p. 406.
- 23.
Aberastury and Cilurzo 1998, p. 60.
- 24.
In Argentina: Article of the National Constitution and Habeas Data Law (Law No. 25326/2000).
- 25.
Aberastury and Gottschau 2001, p. 31.
- 26.
Altmark and Molina Quiroga 1996, p. 1565.
- 27.
Sacristan and Ratti Mendaña 2012, p. 884 et seq.
- 28.
Cf. Article 4 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016.
- 29.
Sec. 12 of the Brazilian Decree N° 7724 of 16 May 2012. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/decreto/d7724.htm (Accessed on 14 March 2016).
- 30.
Union Audit Office, Administrative Process n° 09200.000284/2015-47 (31 July 2015). It was about a petition made by a citizen to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the purpose of obtaining the whole content of diplomatic telegrams elaborated or received by the Ministry between the months of May and June of 2015, as well as the indication of how many would receive the classification of ultra secret, secret or reserved. The Audit Office understood that although the request was not unreasonable or generic, it had a disproportionate character, because it would include over 20,000 files, or around 50 different investigations would be needed, with its selection and digital recording of documents.
- 31.
The Argentinian Law 27275/2016 establishes in its Article 29 an interjurisdictional body, the Federal Council for Transparency (Consejo Federal para la Transparencia), which will have as objective technical cooperation and an agreement on policies on transparency and access to public information.
- 32.
Cf. National Supreme Court of Justice, Argentina (Corte Suprema de Justicia de La Nación Argentina) which obliges a company, whose shares are in power of the State to deliver information on a contract signed with a private individual. National Supreme Court of Justice, Argentina (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina), Giustiniani, Rubén Héctor v/ YPF S.A. on legal protection proceedings for default (amparo por mora), -CSJN-10/11/2.015 (Judgment of 10 November 2015). The Argentinian Law 27275/2016, in its Article 7 makes an extensive application of who is obliged to provide information (“obliged subjects”).
- 33.
Recourse 99901.000091/2012-39 (Banco do Brasil S.A.). Available at: http://www.acessoainformacao.gov.br/precedentes/BB/99901000091201239.pdf, and p. 74 et seq. in: http://www.acessoainformacao.gov.br/assuntos/recursos/recursos-julgados-a-cmri/decisoes/2012-1/18.pdf (Accessed on 15 May 2017).
- 34.
Brazilian Court of Audit, C 009.831/2010-0 (Judgment of 20 March 2013).
- 35.
Civil Rights Association cl EN – PAMI – (Decree No.1172/03), Amparo Law 16986 of 4 December 2012 (The writ of amparo is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights). There, it was stated: “(14) Whereas in the same sense, it is worth mentioning that Information has been described “democracy’s oxygen”, whose importance can be seen at different levels. Fundamentally, democracy consists of the ability of individuals to participate effectively in the decision-making processes that affect them. This participation depends on the information which is available.” In addition, it is worth remembering that “In view of the above [...] the importance of the existence of a clear, complete and consistent legal system is implied, which sets forth the guidelines of the right to access to information so that measures which guarantee its exercise are taken. Access to information promotes accountability and transparency within the State and allows having a solid and well-informed public debate. In this way, an appropriate legal system of access to information allows people to play an active role in the government, necessary condition for keeping a healthy democracy” (see point 9, “Relationship between the right to access to information in the power of the State and the right to political participation”, stated in Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights CIDH, paragraphs 138 and 140 of the Special Study […]).”
- 36.
See also Article 1 principle 9 of Law 27275/2016.
- 37.
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L7115.htm (Accessed on 30 March 2016).
- 38.
Aberastury and Cilurzo 1998, p. 39.
- 39.
Cf. I/A Court H. R., Case of Claude Reyes, et al. v. Chile (Judgment of 19 September 2006), Series C No. 151.
- 40.
García Ramírez and Gonza 2007, p. 22.
- 41.
Cf. the exhaustive list of “exceptions” in Article 8 of Law 28275/2016; previously: Sec. 17 of the Decree 1172/2003.
- 42.
Cf. Article 1 principle 12 of Law 28275/2016: “[…] the limits on the right of access to official information must be exceptional, established in advance as stipulated in this law, and formulated clearly and precisely [...]”.
- 43.
Cf. also Sec. 29 of the German Law of administrative procedure regarding “inspection of records by participants”; cf. Aberastury & Blanke 2012.
- 44.
I/A Court H. R., Case of Claude-Reyes, et al. v. Chile (Judgment of 19 September 2006), Series C No. 151.
- 45.
Cf. I/A Court H. R., Palamara Iribarne Case (Judgment of 22 November 2005), para 85; Case of Ricardo Canese (Judgment of 31 August 2004), para 96; Case of Herrera Ulloa (Judgment of 2 July 2004), para 121 and 123; Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para 46.
- 46.
Cf. I/A Court H. R., Palamara Iribarne Case (Judgment of 22 November 2005), para 85; Case of Ricardo Canese (Judgment of 31 August 2004), para 96; Case of Herrera Ulloa (Judgment of 2 July 2004), para 121 and 123; Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para 46.
- 47.
I/A Court H. R., Case of The Last Temptation of Christ. Olmedo Bustos and Others v. Chile (Judgment of 5 February 2001). There it was held: “(64) With regard to the content of the right to freedom of thought and expression, those who are protected by the Convention not only have the right and the freedom to express their own thoughts, but also the right and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Consequently, freedom of expression has an individual and a social dimension: It requires, on the one hand, that no one be arbitrarily limited or impeded in expressing his own thoughts. In that sense, it is a right that belongs to each individual. Its second aspect, on the other hand, implies a collective right to receive any information whatsoever and to have access to the thoughts expressed by others […] 66 […] For the ordinary citizen, the knowledge of other people’s opinions and information is as important as the right to impart their own. 67. The Court considers that both dimensions are of equal importance and should be guaranteed simultaneously in order to give total effect to the right to freedom of thought and expression in the terms of Article 13 of the Convention [...] 68. As the cornerstone of a democratic society, freedom of expression is an essential condition for society to be sufficiently informed.”
- 48.
Article 11 of the Argentinian Law 27275/2016.
- 49.
As an example of what we have stated, we can refer to the different Acts in force in the Argentinian provincial system. In relation to this, Law No. 12475 of the Province of Buenos Aires can be mentioned, which stipulates that after 30 business days without the Authority having issued an answer, the request will be considered rejected. Law No. 104 of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Law No. 8,803 of the Province of Cordoba, Law No. 3764 from Chubut, Decree No. 1169/2005 of the Province of Entre Rios, Law No. 4444 from Jujuy and Law No. 653 of Tierra del Fuego state a time limit no longer than ten (10) days for the delivery of the information requested. Law No. 6,753, from Santiago del Estero, sets forth a deadline of 20 days. Law No. 6,437, of the Province of Chaco and Decree No. 0692 of the Province of Santa Fe grant a deadline no longer than fifteen (15) business days and Law No. 4,184 of the Province of Misiones, 15 or 30 days according to the fact that the information is before the enforcement authority or a Third Party. Finally, Decree No. 1574/02 of the Province of Salta establishes a time limit no longer than thirty (30) business days.
- 50.
Sanchez Viamonte 1957, p. 137.
- 51.
I/A Court H. R. Commission Report N° 39/96, Case 11,673, of 15 October 1996.
- 52.
Inter American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC -14/94 of 9 December, 1994, Court I.D.H. (SER.A) N° 14.
- 53.
Cfr. para 57 and 58 in re: Inter American Commission of Human Rights, 1999/09/29, Report 105/99, Case 10.194: Palacios, Narciso v. Argentina; cfr Botassi 2000.
- 54.
Cfr. Case “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos and others) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Sentence of 5 February 2001. Series C Number 73, paragraph. 87; Case La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Sentence of 29 November 2006, Series C Number 162. (171); and Case Zambrano Vélez and others, Reparations and Costs, Sentence of 4 July 2007 para 79.
- 55.
Cfr. Case Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Sentence of 27 August 1998. Series C No. 39, par. 68; Case La Cantuta, par. 170; and Case Zambrano Vélez, et al., Sentence of 4 July 2007 para 55.
- 56.
Bidart Campos 1968, p. 227.
- 57.
- 58.
It can be said that in the Case “AGN v/ SIGEN”, held by the Chamber II of the National Court of Appeal on Federal Contentious Administrative matters on 12 April 2011, a legal proceeding for the protection of constitutional rights (amparo action), was substantiated for the delay of the negative decision from SIGEN (Sindicatura General de Empresas Publicas – General Auditing Office for Public Enterprises) to deliver a documentation which was referred to 2009 and requested in March 2010. In the Case Morales, Gerardo Rubén and other v. National State – Ministry of Economy, National Court of Appeal on Federal Contentious Administrative matters, Chamber V of 18 October 2007, where it was recognized legislators’ legal standing , applying what was prescribed in Decree 1172/2003, admitting the amparo action for delay submitted to obtain information related to wrongdoings allegedly committed in the proceedings of payment requests of a debt claimed by the National State (Greco affair).
- 59.
Article 14 of Law 27275/2016 states on “complaint procedures”: “Rulings on access to official information may be appealed directly to the courts of first instance in the federal administrative law section, without prejudice to option of filing an administrative compliant with the Agency of Access to Official Information or the corresponding body, depending on the party that has standing to be sued. […]”. Regarding the “complaint for violation” the Argentinian legislators have established the following: “In the case justifying denial of a request for information under Article 13 of the present law or any other violation of the present law, the applicant may, within forty (40) working days after the expiry of the time limit for the response […] under the present law, file a complaint with the Agency of Access to Public Information or, at the applicant’s option, with the organization to which the request was originally made.” (Article 15 of Law 27275/2016).
- 60.
National Supreme Court of Justice, Cases 239:459.
- 61.
National Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, Arguments Cases 241:291.
- 62.
Aberastury & Gottschau 2001.
- 63.
The claim of the plaintiff – aimed at having access to data recorded in State, military or civil files, from which it could be found out what the fate of his brother who was missing during painful circumstances which occurred in the country – must not be appreciated within the specific legal framework of an informative legal protection proceeding – habeas data–, but within the legal protection proceeding (amparo) in general (from Judges Belluscio and López’s Opinion). National Supreme Court of Justice, Argentina (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina), case of Urteaga, Facundo R. v Joint Staff of the Armed Forces (Judgment of 15 October 1998).
- 64.
Cf. regarding the use of the legal protection proceedings for delay (amparo por mora) cf. the Case Giustiniani, Rubén Héctor v YPF. S.A., which compelled the defendant to provide information about an oil contract, signed by the defendant, by making reference to case-law of the I/A Court H.R; National Supreme Court of Justice, Argentina (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina),Giustiniani, Rubén Héctor v/ YPF S.A. on legal protection proceedings for default (amparo por mora), 10/11/2.015 (Judgment of 10 November 2015).
- 65.
“[...] the law shall not exclude any injury or threat to a right from the consideration of the Judicial Power”.
- 66.
Argentinian Law 27275 was modified by decree 746/2017 and regulated by decree 206/2017. http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/265000-269999/265949/texact.htm.
- 67.
According to Sec. 126 of the General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information, the time limits of all notices stated in this Law, shall run from the day after they have been served, and when the deadlines are stipulated in days, they shall be considered business days.
- 68.
See Separate Opinion of Judge Antonio Canςado Trindade in the Dismissed Congress Workers’ Case of Aguado Alfaro and others v Peru (Judgment of 24 November 2006), Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C Number. 158, paragraph 11 and subsequent ones. Quote from Case of Goiburú and Others v Paraguay (Judgment of 22 September 2006).
- 69.
Series on Treaties, Organization of American States (OAS) Number 36,1144, Series on Treaties United Nations Organization (UN), 123 entry in force on 18 July 1978, re printed in Basic Documents Concerning Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OAS/Ser.L.V/II.82 doc.6.rev.1 p. 25 (1992).
- 70.
Sentence of 2 February 2001 Series C 72.
- 71.
Aberastury and Gottschau 2001, p. 90.
- 72.
Sentence of 2 February 2001 Series C 72.
- 73.
Almonacid Arellano and others v Chile, Judgment of 26 September 2006.
References
Aberastury, P., & Blanke, H.-J. (Eds.). (2012). Tendencias Actuales del Procedimiento Administrativo en Latinoamérica y Europa. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Eudeba.
Aberastury, P., & Cilurzo, M. R. (1998). Curso de procedimiento administrativo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Abeledo Perrot.
Aberastury, P., & Gottschau, E. P. (2001). Derecho a la Recopilación de Datos, en Poder Político y Libertad de Expresión. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Sociedad Científica Argentina–Instituto de Ciencia Política y Constitucional: Abeledo Perrot.
Altmark, D. R., & Molina Quiroga, E. (1996). Hábeas data. Revista La Ley, 1996-A-1565.
Bidart Campos, G. (1968). Régimen Legal y Jurisprudencial del Amparo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediar.
Bidart Campos, G. (1996). Tratado Elemental de Derecho constitucional Argentino. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediar.
Botassi, C. (2000). Comentario al caso Palacios, Narciso c/Argentina. Revista La Ley, del 11/12/2000.
Casal, J. M. (2010). Los Derechos Fundamentales y sus Restricciones. Venezuela: Legis.
García de Enterría, E., & Fernández, T. R. (1983). Curso de Derecho Administrativo. Madrid, Spain: Civitas.
García Ramírez, S., & Gonza, A. (2007). La libertad de expresión en la Jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. México: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
Lazzarini, J. L. (1987). El juicio de Amparo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: La Ley.
López-Ayllon, S. (2002). Derechos fundamentales y acceso a la información pública: los desafíos de una legislación necesaria. In M. Carbonell (Ed.), Derechos Fundamentales y Estado, Memoria del VII Congreso Iberoamericano del Derecho Constitucional. México: ed. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM.
Rivas, A. A. (1990). El amparo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones La Rocca.
Sacristan, E. B., & Ratti Mendaña, F. S. (2012). Procedimiento Administrativo y Acceso a la Información. In H. Pozo Gowland, D. Halperin, O. Aguilar Valdez, F. J. Lima, & A. Canosa (Eds.), Procedimiento Administrativo. La Ley.: Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sagües, N. P. (1979). Ley de Amparo (Law of “Amparo” – Legal protection proceedings). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Astrea.
Sanchez Viamonte, C. (1957). El Constitucionalismo. Sus problemas (El orden jurídico positivo. Supremacía, defensa y vigencia de la Constitución). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ed. Bibliográfica Argentina.
Spielmann, D., &Drzemczewski, A. (2014). Concurring opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade in the case of the five pensioners versus Peru (Reparations, Judgment of 28.02.2003). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.
Vallefin, C. A. (2009). El Acceso a la información pública (Access to public information). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ad Hoc.
List of Cases
Inter-American Court on Human Rights
I/A Court H. R. 19.09.2006, Case of Claude-Reyes, et al. v. Chile, Series C No. 151.
I/A Court H. R. 28.02.2003, Case of Five Pensioners v Peru.
I/A Court H. R. 05.02.2001, Case of The Last Temptation of Christ. Olmedo Bustos and Others v Chile.
Argentinian Courts
National Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN)
Argentinian National Supreme Court of Justice 10.11.2015, Giustiniani, Rubén Héctor v YPF S.A. on legal protection proceedings for default (amparo por mora), -CSJN-10/11/2.015.
Argentinian National Supreme Court of Justice 04.12.2012, Civil Rights Association v EN–PAMI – (Decree 1172/03) on “amparo” Law 16986, (legal proceedings for protection of rights).
National Court of Appeal on Federal Contentious Administrative matters
Chamber II 12.04.2011, AGN v SIGEN.
Chamber V 18.10.2007, Morales, Gerardo Rubén and other v National State–Ministry of Economy.
Brazilian Courts
Federal Supreme Court of Brazil
Federal Supreme Court of Brazil 09.06.2011, Suspensão de Segurança SS 3902.
Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber
Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber 23.08.2000, Ruth Carriles Méndez and others, sentence N° 1050/00.
Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber 14.03.2001, INSACA, sentence N° 332.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aberastury, P., Arruda, A., Carrasco Baptista, R.V., Robles, R. (2018). Procedural and Remedial Aspects of Access to Information. 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_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55554-5_18
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)