ACCESS TO INFORMATION

The public’s access to government information is in principle unrestricted. In accordance with the Finnish constitution of 2000, every Finnish citizen has the right of access to public documents and recordings. This right implies access to documents and recordings in the possession of authorities, unless their publication has for some compelling reason been restricted by a government act. However, special categories are secret and exempt from release, including documents that relate to foreign affairs, criminal investigations, the police or the security police, military intelligence and so on. Such documents are usually kept secret for a period of 25 years, unless otherwise provided by law. Finland was also among the first countries to sign the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents in 2009. The act on the openness of government activities (1999) stipulates that persons asking for information are not required to provide reasons for their request; responses to requests must be made within 14 days. Appeals to any denial can be made to a higher authority and then to the Administrative Court. The chancellor of justice and the parliamentary ombudsman can also review the appeal. Most probably, the policy of openness and electronic access is a key reason for the low levels of corruption in Finland.

Freedom of information legislation gives every person right of access to official documents held by public authorities. Official documents are defined as information which is recorded and can be listened to, displayed or transferred and which is either created by the authority then dispatched or has been received by the authority.
All records are indexed at the time of creation or receipt and some ministries make the electronic indexes available on the Internet or through e-mail. Requests can be made in any form (even anonymously) and must be responded to without undue delay, generally (according to Ministry of Justice guidelines) within three days.
Documents can be withheld if they are made secret by another law or if they refer to issues of national security, national defense or international relations, financial management, the minutes of the State Council, appointments or protections in the civil service, regulatory or control measures, test answers, annual fiscal budgets or long-term budgets, or photographs of persons entered in a personal data register. If access is denied, individuals can appeal to a higher authority and then to parliament’s ombudsman for public administration, or to a court. The ombudsman’s decisions are not binding but are generally followed. There have been very few court cases dealing with this issue.
The 1998 Security Act sets rules on the classification of information. It creates four levels of classification and mandates that information cannot be classified for more than 30 years. The Act on Defense Secrets prohibits the disclosure of military secrets by government officials and also the collection (in the form of sketches, photographs and notes) and disclosure of secrets by others, including journalists. Articles 90 and 91 of the criminal code criminalize the disclosure of secrets, and provide for imprisonment of up to 10 years.
In 2010 the government eased access for citizens to public documents by providing them with access to the electronic post journal of the government.

Sweden is a forerunner when it comes to public access of government information and documents. This fundamental principle remains cherished both by the elite and the public. If anything, the emergence of e-government has further promoted the objective of accessibility and transparency. Sweden is also pursuing greater transparency within the EU Commission.

Denmark passed the Access to Public Administration Files Act in 1985, which replaced a previous act made law in 1964. The act stipulates that “any person may demand that he be apprised of documents received or issued by an administration authority in the course of its activity.” There are exceptions to this framework; the act does not apply to matters of criminal justice, nor does the right of access extend to an authority’s internal case material. Further, the right of access does not apply to five specific sorts of documents, which include: records of meetings of the Council of State, as well as minutes of meetings of ministers, and documents prepared by an authority for use at such meetings; correspondence between ministers, relating to the making of laws, including appropriation bills; documents exchanged in connection with the secretarial function of one authority on behalf of another authority; correspondence between authorities and outside experts for use in court proceedings or in deliberations on possible legal proceedings; and material gathering for the purpose of public statistics or scientific research.

The law previously included European Community documents, but this exemption was removed in 1991.

The law further describes files that “may be subject to limitations,” namely files concerning: state security or the defense of the realm; protection of Danish foreign policy or of Danish external economic interests, including relations with foreign powers or international institutions; prevention and clearing-up of any infringement of the law, prosecution of offenders, execution of sentences and the like, and protection of persons accused, of witnesses or others in matters of criminal or disciplinary prosecution; implementation of public supervision, control, regulation or planning activities, or of measures planned under taxation law; protection of public financial interests, including interests relating to public commercial activities; or protection of private or public interests where secrecy is required because of the special nature of the matter.
This list is obviously rather long. And some of the possibilities to deny access to documents are rather open-ended. The act does stipulate that requests must be dealt with quickly; if no decision has been made within 10 days, authorities have to inform the inquiring party as to why their request is delayed, and when they can expect a decision.

The parliamentary ombudsman can review the decisions by administrative authorities over the disclosure of information. He cannot change decisions but can make recommendations. These recommendations are normally followed by the authorities.

Denmark was not among the 12 European countries that signed the first international convention on access to official documents in Tromsø, Norway, on June 18, 2009. This Council of Europe convention has been criticized for its weaknesses.

Article 110 of the constitution states: “In the exercise of their duties government bodies shall observe the principle of transparency in accordance with rules to be prescribed by Act of Parliament.” Freedom of information legislation was first adopted in 1978. The Government Information (Public Access) Act (WOB) replaced the original law in 1991. WOB’s legal scope entails both active and passive public accessibility of information. Passive accessibility (art. 3-7) means that administrative bodies are obliged to provide information on request; active accessibility (art. 8-9) concerns information that public bodies ought to make public on their own initiative.

Under WOB, any person can demand information related to an “administrative matter” if it is contained in “documents” held by public authorities or companies carrying out work for a public authority. In order to allow citizens maximum access, they need only to indicate the “administrative matter”; they don’t have to specify the precise, concrete documents they are looking for. “Documents” are also broadly defined and may be information stored on paper, but also on other image- or sound storage devices, digital files on computer disks or other types of electronic information-carrying devices. The request can be either written or oral. The authority has two weeks to respond. Recommendations of advisory committees must be made public within four weeks.

Information must be withheld, however, if it would endanger the unity of the crown, damage the security of the state or, particularly, if it relates to information on companies and manufacturing processes that were provided in confidence. Information can also be withheld “if its importance does not outweigh” the imperatives of international relations and the economic or financial interest of the state. Withholding is also allowed if the release of the information would endanger the investigation of criminal offenses, inspections by public authorities, personal privacy, or the prevention of disproportionate advantage or disadvantage to a natural or legal person. In documents created for internal consultation, personal opinions shall not be disclosed except in anonymous form when it is “in the interests of effective democratic governance.” Moreover, environmental information is frequently considered secret. This is because such information concerns financial an economic state interests (one of the grounds of exception), or if providing such information could damage the environment itself.

According to experts, the WOB is only lightly used, around 1,000 requests each year, mostly by a few newspaper journalists. The lack of interest stems from media and NGOs’ belief that filing requests could damage good relations with government bodies, no tradition of political research, a lack of sanctions, broad exemptions and poor archives.

Access to government information is regulated by the Official Information Act 1982. It is based on the principle that all official information should be made available, but there are restrictions with regard to the protection of the public interest (for example, national security or international relations) and the preservation of personal privacy. There are clear procedures in how queries have to be dealt with by public bodies, including a time frame of 20 working days. The Office of the Ombudsmen reviews denials of access upon request. Decisions are binding, but there are no real sanctions for non-compliance. Following a number of precedent-setting decisions by the office in recent years, access to official information is now far-reaching, including politically sensitive communications between political advisers and ministers, as soon as this communication is held by the ministry. The Official Information Act has been reviewed several times. Proposals for reform have included a reduction of the time frame for dealing with requests for official information; and more resources for the Office of the Ombudsmen, but these reforms have not been implemented so far. The office has rather concentrated on organizational restructuring to achieve more efficiency and effectiveness.

Swiss authorities pursue very open strategies of information release. For example, the website of the federal administration (www.admin.ch) offers access to major sources of political information.
Article 16 of the constitution, on the issue of freedom of opinion and information, states that: “(1) The freedom of opinion and information is guaranteed; (2) Every person has the right to form, express and disseminate opinions freely; (3) Every person has the right to receive information freely, to gather it from generally accessible sources and to disseminate it.”
The Federal Law on the Principle of Administrative Transparency (Loi sur la Transparence, LTrans) was approved in December 2004 and took force in July 2006. The law gives any person the right to consult official documents and obtain information from authorities. The authorities must respond within 20 days. If a request is refused, a citizen can seek redress from the Federal Delegate for Data Protection. However, this law’s applicability is partially limited. The law applies to federal public bodies, other organizations and persons who make decisions under the Administrative Procedures Act, and Parliamentary Services. The Suisse National Bank and the Federal Commission on Banks are exempted. The law also does not apply to official documents concerning civil or criminal law processes, documents relating to foreign policy, or political party dossiers relating to administrative disputes.
Given these qualifications, it is noteworthy that this law has gained some influence, since the Federal Supreme Court interprets it in a liberal way (see Decision 1C_522/2009, of May 19, 2010).

Access to government information is largely regulated by freedom of information (FOI) legislation. The first legislation was passed in the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982, with all states and territories passing similar legislation shortly thereafter. FOI legislation contains a considerable number of exemptions. The Labor government elected in 2007 campaigned on a platform to update the legislation and to increase the amount of government information available to the public. The first stage of the reform agenda was the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009 and the Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Amendment Regulation 2009, which reduced or made free of charges applications for some government information.
The second stage of the reform of FOI was the creation of the Australian Government Office of the Information Commissioner; in 2010 the former Commonwealth ombudsman John McMillan was appointed to the position. He was charged with overseeing the federal government’s new FOI laws.
The enactment of new FOI laws has been seen as an important precursor to the development of a comprehensive” government 2.0” agenda, which aims to develop more open access to government, stronger public participation and scrutiny of government decisions, as well as to provide more information and thereby improve legitimacy for government decision-making.

The Czech constitution and the 1999 Law on Free Access to Information, substantially amended in 2006, provide for far-reaching access to government information. Public bodies have gradually learned what can and cannot be kept secret. The president’s office initially refused to provide any information, but from 2008 it complied with the law and published details on its website explaining how to seek information and what prices will be charged. In 2009, it received 27 requests, none of which were refused. There are still difficulties with many municipalities, but they too can be taken to court if they refuse to respond to requests for information. Some smaller municipalities have been confronted with serious financial difficulties following failure to disclose information as requested. Journalists have been making use of the freedom of information law to follow possible cases of government-level corruption associated with major arms contracts, but have been refused information detailing fees received by private companies and on individuals who may have been responsible for signing deals. The increasing number and quality of electronic portals for public administration has further improved the access to government information.
.

On the basis of legislation passed in 1999 and 2006 (Laws 2690/1999 and 3448/2006), access to information is ample and free. There are a few reasonable restrictions referring to matters of national defense and security. In the 2008 – 2010 period, there were a few changes to these regulations. First, a new ministerial ordinance was issued by the ND government in April 2009. The ordinance required all public services, including regional and local authorities, to create a separate section on their website where all administrative documents they produced would be published. Each public service would thus create its own “Service Gazette.” However, the ND government lost the elections of October of that year, and the ordinance was not fully implemented.
Second, a new law was under preparation at the time of writing. The new PASOK government planned to extend access to information through a new law, the first draft of which was ready in late April 2010. The new law extended to state-owned enterprises the aforementioned requirement for electronic publication of documents, and also created a very detailed list of all documents which were required to be made publicly accessible through the Internet.

Hungarian law provides for far-reaching access to government information. The 2008 amendment of the 2004 Act on the General Rules of Administrative Procedures further expanded the access to information about the state of public procedures. In addition, the number and quality of public institutions’ websites have increased substantially. Bureaucratic procedures sometimes disturb the free flow of information. However, violations of the legal obligations are rare, and in most cases, citizens can enforce their right of access to information.

There were no significant changes in this area during the reference period.
Freedom of information (FOI) legislation was introduced in 1997. It provides for public access to data and information about decision-making in the public administration, subject to the exclusion of 12 areas (including defense, government meetings, areas of commercial sensitivity and so on). The act was amended in 2003 in a more restrictive direction. Charges to the public for obtaining information were raised. The amendment provoked more controversy than the original act. Reservations have been expressed about the scale of charges now in place and the wide range of material excluded from the scope of the act, conditions which restrict the public’s access to information compared to the situation between 1997 and 2003.
Nonetheless, the FOI legislation has been used with considerable effect by individuals and more frequently by the press to gain access to information regarding the manner in which ministries reach decisions or the expenses incurred in public procurement, and to highlight instances of the waste of public funds.
Government departments, ministries and agencies now have information officers to channel information to the public. In some cases these officers act as purveyors of objective information; others act as “spin doctors” putting interpretations on events that suit politicians.
The Central Statistics Office (CSO) is responsible for the collection and dissemination of official statistics. An independent National Statistics Board oversees its performance. This office is located in the Department of the Taoiseach (the prime minister’s office) and is not answerable to the ministers responsible for areas covered by the statistics. These ministers have no right to edit or censor statistics released by the office. Sensitive data (such as figures on inflation, unemployment, etc.) are made available to ministries shortly before their publication, but there is no right to alter these data or to interfere with the manner in which they are presented. The Irish CSO enjoys a good reputation internationally in terms of its independence from political interference and the technical competence of its staff.

The first freedom of information act was introduced by Law No. 241 in 1990. Its provisions were amended and made less restrictive by Law No. 15 of 2005. Disclosure can be denied only under specific circumstances (such as national security reasons, protection of privacy, etc.) which must be explicitly identified by administrative offices. Special offices (Uffici Relazioni con il Pubblico, URP) dealing with requests for access to information have been established in all administrative offices, both nationally and locally. Access has become increasingly easy and effective. Both judicial and nonjudicial mechanisms of appeal exist, and are increasingly used. Among these should be mentioned the Commission for Access to Public Documents (Commissione per l’accesso ai documenti amministrativi) of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which receives appeals in cases of information-disclosure denials, and can public administrative bodies to reconsider their decisions. The commission, which is composed both of parliamentarians and of technical officers, transmits an annual report to the parliament. Regional administrative tribunals can judicially enforce the disclosure of documents.

As the absence of a freedom of information act has remained an issue, the program of the 2009 government promises a “new law inspired on the principles adopted by the laws of our neighbors and recommendations of the Council of Europe.” Meanwhile, the most effective way to obtain information from the government is the so-called parliamentary query; the government is required to provide an answer within a month or even within a week, in case of urgency. The most recent statistics for the parliamentary session 2007-2008 include 859 questions submitted, generally involving more technical or circumstantial issues, but sometimes involving sensitive matters.
General information is easily obtained from the government website, which centralizes access to ministries and communication between official agencies and citizens.

The law provides for far-reaching access to government information. However, citizens are often not aware of their rights and have so far made little use of them. If citizens do request information, public bodies often respond too late. The Commissioner for Citizens’ Rights, the Polish ombudsman, has called for greater transparency, arguing that the right to information should be given priority over protecting the privacy of public officials.

The United Kingdom’s Freedom of Information Act 2005 (FOI) was an attempt to open a notoriously secretive government bureaucracy to more public scrutiny. Generally this can be said to have been successful, although the limits on FOI have been criticized: No information will be divulged if openness will cause more harm to the public interest than good; if the cost of compliance exceeds an appropriate limit; or if the country’s security, economic or financial interests are at stake. Any denials of access to information must be explained and justified. Appeals to such a denial can be made to the Information Commissioner’s Office, upon whose orders action can be taken in court.
Recently, with the help of the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the government embarked upon a new “open data” initiative, endeavoring to make all publicly collected data available to the public through the Internet. Besides this being an exercise in transparency, it is also hoped that this will spark new inventions by “unlocking innovation” (see http://data.gov.uk/ for details). Government departments and most public agencies are reasonably good at providing information on policy decisions, with speeches and relevant documents rapidly made available online.

On the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act allows citizens a high degree of access to documents and files held by the federal government and its agencies. Various categories of information are exempt, such as information related to national defense, personnel rules and practices, ongoing criminal investigations, and participation in legal cases. A formal request is required and appeals to courts possible. An Obama administration executive order has authorized the retroactive reclassification of information on national security grounds. The Patriot Act of 2001, renewed with Obama’s support in 2010, has allowed some additional restrictions to be placed on disclosure. The Obama administration, however, has not continued the Bush administration’s frequent appeals to executive privilege as a means of limiting access to information.

According to the Austrian constitution and other laws at both the federal and state level, public authorities are obliged to provide citizens with information concerning all matters within their realm of responsibility. However, the obligation to report is limited by the legal requirements of secrecy, for reasons relating to public security, defense, international relations, or the government’s economic or financial interests.
According to the standard legal procedures of the Austrian administrative courts, an individual or organization can appeal a denial of information.

While there is no official act guaranteeing free access to information, access to official information is provided for in the legal code and should be easy to obtain. Belgium was one of the signatories of the Convention on Access to Official Documents in 2009.
In practice, however, some valuable information can be hard to find, not directly publicized or made widely available. Sometimes, also, information is collected along different procedures depending on the region (for those prerogatives that have now been federalized). As a researcher, it may even be hard to figure out how to gain access to specific information. A recent issue over crime data offers one concrete example. Although the police collect crime data on a very local basis, publicly available data is aggregated across districts, possibly for political reasons. Tensions over this aggregation came to a head in 2010 when a number of city mayors argued they were lacking resources to address a rise in crime in their neighborhoods. Similar issues arose over the management of the public pension scheme, over reasons for the country’s poor PISA scores, and over the allocation of some public subsidies.
There is one seriously problematic situation with regard to language for citizens. Even though French, Dutch and German are Belgium’s three official languages, it is virtually impossible for a French-speaker living in Flanders or a Dutch-speaker living in Wallonia to obtain information in their native language, let alone to interact with their local or regional administration in their native language. Such language problems don’t happen within federal institutions, however, which must offer bilingual services.

Access to official information is regulated by law, and restrictions such as national security considerations may often be justified. Access is also often complicated by bureaucratic procedures. In general, there is reluctance on the part of political and bureaucratic officials to release information that puts the government in a bad light, and the current system of access to information appears to allow such attitudes to influence the release of information. Although the law does provide for access to much of the Canadian government’s documents, there are restrictions in place, such as the censoring of information for national security reasons, that some groups feel have been misapplied by the current government. For instance, a report in 2008 (Tromp, 2008) asserts that Canada fails to conform with many central freedom-of-information recommendations, and that many quasi-governmental entities are not covered under Canada’s Access to Information Act. More recently, the Conservative government was lambasted by the opposition for releasing heavily censored documents on the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. Many people felt that the heavy censorship was not designed to protect the national security of Canada but rather the self-interest of the Conservative government. However, this censorship is currently undergoing an appeal process to determine what information should be made public.
According to the Treasury Board, the rate of processed access requests granted full disclosure fell from 48.8% in 1999 – 2000 to 22.6% in 2008 – 2009. In contrast, the 2008 rate of successful disclosure requests was 60% in the United Kingdom and 43% in the United States (Gatehouse, 2010:23).

According to freedominfo.org, Chile was the most recent Latin-American country to enact legislation guaranteeing the right to freely access government information (see the Ley sobre Transparencia de la Función Pública y Acceso a la Información de los Organos de la Administración del Estado, or Ley N° 20.285, August 2008). This law mandates that all government agencies must respond to requests for information within a period of 20 days, excluding topics protected as state secrets. This period can be extended by an additional 10 days. The judiciary and parliament have only the obligation to inform the public through their websites (so-called active transparency). It is important to note that there are still about 20 laws that officially count as secret laws, some of which go back to the beginning of the 20th century while others date from the military regime period. The existence of the majority of these laws is de facto known by the public, but is still formally treated as secret.

Access to official information is provided by a law adopted in 1978 in the wake of the American Freedom of Information Act. An ad hoc commission (Commission d’Accès aux Documents Administratifs, CADA) oversees this legislation and might take a stand in case of conflict between the administration and citizens. In case of a rejection of citizens’ demands, it is possible to appeal to administrative courts. Once remedies are exhausted it is still possible to put a request to the French ombudsman, or “médiateur.” On the whole, access to information is made easy. However, confidential information is too often covered up by using the loose concept of “secret defense.” Quite often, sensitive information is not provided through official channels but through leaks in the media and in particular, in Le Canard Enchaîné, a weekly newspaper which is known for printing information that public authorities would prefer to keep far from the public’s eyes.
Nevertheless, the development of new technologies, such as e-government and e-administration, has increased the possibility and outlets for citizens to obtain important information. The diffusion of public statistical surveys, public reports and other documents from different public bodies has been largely facilitated by Internet sites allowing the downloading these documents without cost or restriction.

In his second annual report for the years 2008 – 2009, the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (FCDI) made clear that the effort to create a transparent federal administration remains far from complete. The 2006 Freedom of Information Act (FIA) remains largely unknown among the citizenry. Moreover, although many federal agencies try to ensure transparency, some public authorities have taken a very restrictive regulatory interpretation when evaluating information requests. Some have even sought to delay the process in order to deter citizens seeking to exercise their right to information. According to the FCDI, changes in governmental practices as well as further limitations to statutory exceptions are needed. Furthermore, the coexistence of different standards regarding information requirements in the FIA, the Environmental Information Act and the Consumer Information Act has proved to be an impediment. The commissioner’s annual report listed 248 cases where citizens sought help in response to federal authorities’ reluctance to make documents available to the public. In a third of the cases, the FDCI confirmed that the information was protected by confidentiality provisions or other FIA exceptions. In almost 40% of the cases, the commissioner’s activity resulted in the release of information. In four cases, the FCDI issued a formal complaint. German authorities, thus, have room for maneuver, and they clearly make use of it.
For instance, the Federal Administrative Court decided that the Ministry of Transportation is not obliged by the FIA to release information on the movements of alleged CIA rendition flights. Whether access to official information can be rejected because of possible adverse effects on international relations is subject to an evaluation by the competent authority. This evaluation can be made only by the administrative courts, the judges argued (NVwZ 2010: 321). Some experts perceive this to be a general tendency. Moreover, some critics contend that the fees citizens must pay in advance in order to obtain official information are excessive. These costs might serve as a deterrent.
Finally, Germany is not one of the 12 Council of Europe states that signed the Convention on Access to Official Documents in June 2009. This, together with the low media attention paid to the FIA, indicates that this general complex of ideas and rights is not a high priority for the German public or media.

The Information Act (Upplýsingalög) took effect in 1997. The act guaranteed, with some restrictions, the right of access to official information. Memoranda, working documents and material related to Council of State (Ríkisráð), cabinet and ministerial meetings are exempted from the act. These exemptions have led to accusations that documents are deliberately mislabeled to keep them inaccessible. The act does not apply to correspondence prepared for court proceedings, job applications, registrations, enforcement proceedings, property attachments, injunctions, sales in execution, moratoria on debts, compositions, liquidations, the division of estates at death or other official divisions, investigations, or prosecutions in criminal cases.
Sensitive financial and personal information, as clarified in the Act on Processing and Protection of Personal Data Act No. 77/2000, are not accessible unless permission is obtained from the person involved. Access to restricted information is available once the measures are complete, or after a period of 30 years for general information or 80 years for personal information (under the National Archives Act No. 66/1985). Information regarding security, defense of the state or international commercial activities is also exempted from the act. Refusal of requests to access information can be appealed to the Information Committee, whose members are appointed by the prime minister. No other government or judicial body can overrule the decisions of the Information Committee.
Sensitive financial or personal information, as clarified in the Act on Processing and Protection of Personal Data Act No. 77/2000, is not accessible unless permission is obtained from the person involved. Access to restricted information is available once the relevant programs are complete, or after a period of 30 years for general information and 80 years for personal information (under the National Archives Act No. 66/1985). Information regarding security, defense of the state and international commercial activities is also exempted from the act. Refusal of information requests can be appealed to the Information Committee, whose members are appointed by the prime minister. No other government or judicial body can overrule the decisions of the Information Committee.

Japan´s Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs came into effect in 2001, followed one year later by the Act on Access to Information Held by Independent Administrative Agencies. In 2007, there were 61,000 requests for disclosure of information made under the former and 5,800 under the latter. Basic rights to access government information are thus in place, although a number of issues remain. Various exemptions apply, as for instance with respect to information regarding specific individuals, national security issues or confidential business matters. Claims can be denied, and the head of the agency involved has considerable discretion. An appeal is possible, but only in court, which involves a very burdensome process.

Free and readily available access to official information is guaranteed in Article 48.2 of the 1976 constitution, and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that this access is respected. There are extensive legal stipulations providing guarantees for access to official information. In addition, the EU Aarhus Convention, signed on July 25, 1998, was ratified by Portugal on September 7, 2003. Maybe most important in this regard, the government has put virtually all official information online, as well as requirements for documents such as permits and licenses, allowing the population to access this information through computers at home and for free in a wide variety of public places such as municipal libraries. This issue is discussed and monitored in Portugal, and access to official information does in fact take place. The Commission on Access to Administrative Documents (Comissao de Acesso aos Documentos Administrativos, CADA), established in 1995, deals with complaints regarding public access to information. Thus, there is broad access, according to the law. However, the information that is available is difficult to locate and uneven across government departments.

Law No. 4982 of October 9, 2003, on Access to Information came into effect on April 24, 2004. Under this law, citizens, legal persons, non-citizens and foreign corporations have a right of access to information. However, many public records are not included in the scope of this law, with exceptions for state secrets (confidential information), intelligence, items deemed in the national interest, the privacy of individual life and the privacy of communication. Almost all public offices have a unit to deal with information requests, which can be made in person or electronically. The number of applications made within the scope of Law No. 4982 has increased gradually, but stabilized during last three years. According to the Annual Report 2009 on Access to Information, a total of 1,091,589 applications were received by public institutions, including the presidency, ministries and municipalities. Of these, 947,637 resulted in the requested information being provided, and 84,723 were rejected on various grounds. Appeals can be made to a board of review that consists of nine senior public servants with some legal background. The board deals with national security and state economic interest issues. As with other administrative decisions, appeals can subsequently be made to the administrative court. Recently the 11th Administrative Court of Ankara annulled a decision of the board in favor of the applicant (the Chamber of Agricultural Engineers).
In short, despite the legal regulation, the use of the right of access to information is not widespread, due mainly to the citizens’ lack of information on the subject, restrictions on the right itself, and ineffective appeal mechanisms.

Mexico’s Freedom of Information Act dates from 2003. Impressionistic evidence suggests that it works reasonably well, though official responses are often slow. It is fully accepted that citizens have the right to request information from official bodies, and there is a formally nonpolitical public agency that arbitrates any disputes do with the release of information. When there are disputes, the agency has to make public its decisions and their grounds. However, given the high level of corruption in Mexico, the freedom to access government information is at least partly undermined by the corruption-induced decline in political transparency.

The access to government information is guaranteed by the constitution and the Act on Free Access to Information approved in 2000. However, the Fico government often declined to provide information, reacted to requests with extreme delay or released only heavily edited information. In doing so, it was often backed by the courts. One spectacular case, which illustrates the restrictive interpretation and implementation of the Act on Free Access to Information, was the 2010 Supreme Court decision on the request to release the audio recordings of the first cabinet meetings of the Fico government. Release of these tapes was demanded so as to determine the legality of a controversial dismissal of state secretaries. However, the Court confirmed the lower court ruling that the tapes did not constitute government information and therefore did not need to be released.

The Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies regulates the access to government information. The Korea Public Information Disclosure System makes available all documents described by the act. Information can also be accessed online at the Online Data Release System. If a person makes a request for the disclosure of information, the agency in possession of the information must make a decision on the petition within 15 days. Excluded from disclosure are all documents related to national security. While this is a reasonable level of exception in theory, “national security” is often interpreted in Korea to have a very wide scope.
Despite the sound legal regulations for information disclosure, there are many complaints about the policy’s practical implementation. Freedominfo.org reports that rejections of information disclosure requests without proper explanation are common. Complaints and litigation following a failure to disclose information are possible.
In a recent survey, Korean newspaper Hankyoreh and the Open Information Center for a Transparent Society found that each of 20 surveyed public institutions failed to disclose relevant information about their activities and a list of available information on their websites, even though required to do so by law.

Spain does not yet have a specific law to guarantee free and easy access to government information. The socialist party, which has held office since 2004, included the passage of such a law as one objective in its 2008 electoral manifesto, but the bill on transparency and access to information had not yet been approved by the Council of Ministers as of spring 2010. Citizen access to public information is partially regulated by specific legislation on administrative procedure (Law 30/1992), environmental issues (Law 38/1995, following a 1990 European directive), and is outlined in the constitution (Article 105 states: “The law shall regulate access by the citizens to the administrative archives and registers, except where it affects the security and defense of the state, the investigation of crimes and the privacy of persons”).
However, access to government information is extremely difficult as a consequence of bureaucratic red tape and the rigid interpretation of exceptions and restrictions (“(D)ocuments can be withheld if the public interest or a third party’s interest would be better served by nondisclosure or if the request would affect the effectiveness of the operations of the public service. Access can also be denied if the documents refer to government actions related to constitutional responsibilities, national defense or national security, investigations, business or industrial secrecy, or monetary policy. Access to documents that contain personal information are limited to the persons named in the documents. There are also restrictions for information protected by other laws including classified information, health information, statistics, the civil and central registry, and the law on the historical archives”). In addition, the legally allowable period for state response is too long (two months) to be practical. Moreover, enforcement and appeal mechanisms (either to the administration itself, to the Ombudsman or to the courts) are ineffective.
An extensive report published in October 2005 by Sustentia and The Open Society Justice Initiative Foundation (reported by Freedominfo.org) concluded that nearly 60% of requests filed under the auspices of Law 30/1992 went unanswered, and replies were discriminatory since the response depended on the identity of the applicant. Of requests filed under Law 38/1995 on the right of access to information relating to the environment, only 30% were answered correctly, while 20% were answered late and the remaining 50% were never answered.