| Access Info Europe v. Council of the European Union | European Union | 2011 | International / EU | The Council infringed Regulation No 1049/2001 by denying disclosure of information relating to the identity of delegations of European Member States making policy proposals under an Article 4(3) exemption to the Regulation because the risk that delegations would refrain from submitting written proposals does not sufficiently undermine the decision-making process to justify the refusal of access to the requested information.
|
| Cardenas v. Mayor of Huamanga | Peru | 2011 | Appellate | The city must deliver information related to the travel, and travel expenses, of public officials as supported by the principle of publicity and the right to access information.
|
| Charles Mwanguhya Mpagi and Izama Angelo v. Attorney General | Uganda | 2010 | First instance | In seeking disclosure of the contents of confidential oil contracts between the government and various companies, the applicants failed to meet the legal standard of Sec. 34(b) of the Access to Information Act because they did not show that the public benefit in disclosure outweighed the harm to the third parties.
|
| Chavez v. National Housing Authority | Philippines | 2007 | Supreme | The 1987 Constitution provides that, despite a lack of enabling law that could require government bodies to publicly disclose information related to government projects and policies, there is a still a duty to permit access to such information.
|
| Ciarán Toland supported by Sweden, Finland and Denmark v. European Parliament | European Union | 2011 | International / EU | Parliament may not refuse to disclose audit reports unless it explicitly determines that (i) disclosure of a requested document would specifically and actually undermine a protected interest, and there is no overriding public interest justifying disclosure, and (ii) the risk of the protected interest being undermined is reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.
|
| Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. US Department of Homeland Security and Others | United States | 2007 | First instance | White House and Vice Predisdential Residence visitor records are "agency records" subject to FOIA disclosure because such records are generated, routinely preserved, and selectively disposed of by the Secret Service.
|
| City of Ottawa v. Ontario | Canada | 2010 | Appellate | The freedom of information law does not require disclosure to the public of personal emails, unrelated to work, even though sent and received by government employees on their workplace email accounts.
|
| Claase v. Information Officer of South African Airways | South Africa | 2006 | Appellate | A retired pilot was entitled, under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), to a record held by a private airlines because he was able to establish that the record existed and that he needed it to protect a right.
|
| Claude Reyes et al. v Chile | Chile | 2006 | International / IACHR | Failure of a state body to disclose information on environmental matters requested by an NGO violated the right of access to state-held information, which is an element of the right to freedom of expression (Article 13 of American Convention on Human Rights).
|
| Common Cause v. Union of India | India | 1996 | Supreme | The scope of the term "conduct of election" in Article 324 of the Constitution of India is broad enough to give the Election Commission authority to issue directions for political parties to submit details of all election-related expenditures.
|
| Conrad Stefaans Brümmer v. the Minister of Social Development and Others | South Africa | 2009 | Constitutional | A thirty-day time limit for parties who wish to challenge a denial of a request for information in court is inadequate; until the legislature passes a law setting a fair time limit, requesters will have 180 days in which to file.
|
| Casas Cordero and Others v. National Customs Service | Chile | 2007 | Constitutional | The right of access to government information is implicitly protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression and the constitutional principle of a democratic republic. Information held by Chile’s Customs Agency regarding tariffs must be disclosed unless disclosure would clearly harm the legitimate commercial interests of an objecting third party.
|
| Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, S.622.XXXIII “S.,V. c/ M., D.A. s/medidas precautorias | Argentina | 1998 | Supreme | Where the essential rights of freedom of the press and individual privacy collide, a court must engage in a factual inquiry to determine the stronger interest; when such privacy interest involves a minor’s personal family situation, the dissemination of the information may be prohibited.
|
| In re Constitutionality of various acts of primary and secondary legislation related to archives and classification regime | Hungary | 1994 | Constitutional | Freedom of scientific life, the right to protection of personal data and the right to freedom of information need to be balanced against one another. The state is obliged to guarantee access to documents of communist ruling parties for scientific research. Freedom of information and scientific life cannot be regulated by secondary legislation. Only people holding public power can classify information as a state or official secret.
|
| Desislava Krasteva (bTV) v. the Administrative Court – Varna | Bulgaria | 2009 | First instance | Information in a court file was ordered disclosed because of allegations that the information was relevant to establishing that the chairperson of the court had accepted bribes, and bribery by a judicial officer is related to pubic life.
|
| Dj. Zanni vs Zhilkomservis No.3 Housing Company | Russia | 2011 | First instance | Housing companies have to disclose budgetary and other information concerning their activities. Information can only be withheld if it falls under and an exemption stipulated by law.
|
| Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council v. Central Information Commission & Navneet Kaur | India | 2008 | Appellate | The Court ruled that a “trade facilitation organization” is a public authority that must abide by the RTI Act because it (a) receives financial support from the government, and (b) is subject to some administrative control, including that it is audited by a government department, reports to the central government through a department, and receives department assignments.
|
| Elizabeth Flores Negri v. Rector of the National University of Asunción | Paraguay | 2007 | First instance | The Paraguayan Constitution provides that people have the right to petition governmental authorities for information as well as the right to be provided with that information, unless the authority timely responds with an exception specifically provided for by the American Converntion of Human Rights and related regional jurisprudence.
|
| Empresa Folha da Manhã S/A v. the President of the House of Representatives | Brazil | 2009 | Supreme | The House of Representatives has a duty to disclose to the media information about expenses of its members.
|
| Environmental Foundation Ltd., v. Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka | Sri Lanka | 2005 | Supreme | Refusal of a development agency, which is a public body, to disclose information about plans to allow a private company to develop a public beach area, violated the constitutional right to freedom of expression, speech and publication of a non-profit organization dedicated to protection of the environment, because the organization acted in the public interest in seeking more information on the proposed transaction.
|
| Forests Survey Inspection Request Case [Petitioner v. Supervisor of County of Ichon] | South Korea | 1989 | Constitutional | Restriction of access to information is unreasonable—in violation of a person’s right to know—where the information has not been classified as confidential, disclosure does not implicate the invasion of another’s privacy, and such person has a direct interest in the information.
|
| Freedom of Information Movement v. Clalit Health Services | Israel | 2011 | Appellate | Israel's largest health services provider, a public entity, must disclose a donation agreement made with the U.S. Schneider Family Foundation concerning a large contribution because the public has a right to know agreements made between public entities and private donors.
|
| Garcia v. Board of Investments | Philippines | 1989 | Supreme | Applications filed by a foreign investment group to build a petrochemical plant are covered by the constitutional right to information and have to be disclosed with the exception of privileged information containing the investors’ trade secrets and other confidential financial information.
|
| Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia | Armenia | 2009 | International / ECHR | The Court rejected as inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies a case seeking access to information where the applicant's lack of information on an information request prevented domestic courts from examining the merits.
|
| Gergely v. Ministry of Development and Economics ("the Gripen case") | Hungary | 2008 | Appellate | The Ministry of Defense, as an organ performing state functions, is obliged to disclose a list of deliverables, determined in the framework of an offset agreement between Hungary and Sweden. The fact that the overall offset procedure has not been finalized does not mean that all related documents were preparatory documents. RTI law overwrites private agreements on non-disclosure.
|
| Gomes Lund et. al. v. Brazil | Brazil | 2010 | International / IACHR | The right to truth about gross human rights violations arises from Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights in combination with other rights. A State may not legitimately deny access to information about gross human rights violations on grounds of state secrecy, and must entertain requests for such information in good faith. The burden of proof regarding the non-existence of relevant records lies with the state.
|
| Greenwatch (U) Ltd v. Attorney General of Uganda and Uganda Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd | Uganda | 2002 | First instance | A power compay wholly owned by the state is a government agent and therefore power agreements to which it is a party are public documents, although corporate citizens requesting access to such documents must adduce evidence as to status of their members as citizens, which an organization did not do.
|
| In re Constitutionality of Acts LXIII of 1992 and LXV of 1995 | Hungary | 2004 | Constitutional | Information created for internal use and in connection with the preparation of decisions could be withheld but only if legislation were amended to provide sufficient guarantees against abuse, namely, to ensure that access should not be restricted after a decision has been made, there must be an opportunity to challenge a decision to withhold information on the merits as well as on procedural grounds, the period for restriction must be limited, and the law must clearly define the restricted category of information.
|
| In re the Constitutionality of Act LXV of 1990 on Local Governments | Hungary | 1992 | Constitutional | The right to receive and impart information of public interest is a fundamental right and Act LXV of 1990 on Local Governments violates this right by providing town councils with absolute discretion to close meetings and deny access to records of such meetings.
|
| International Memorial Society v. Russian Interior Ministry, Federal Security Service (FSB), Ministry of Culture | Russia | 2011 | Supreme | Regulations that provide that materials in the files of closed administrative or criminal cases concerning repression victims may be withheld from the public for 75 years apply only to materials that contain personal or family secrets.
|
| Jenny Cabrera v. Ministry of Justice | Peru | 2007 | Constitutional | Fees charged for access to copies of public information may not exceed market rate for reproduction as established by the rules of administrative procedures of the public agency in question.
|
| Kaneko v. Japan (“Hakata Station Film Case”) | Japan | 1969 | Supreme | The constitutional protection for freedom of expression incorporates the freedom to report facts, and extends to the freedom to gather news necessary for factual reporting. However, these rights are not absolute and it is not a violation to mandate disclosure by the news media of television footage where necessary to ensure a fair trial.
|
| Kariuki v. Attorney General | Kenya | 2011 | First instance | The salaries and allowances of the Armed Forces personnel are not private or confidential and must be disclosed to the requester and the Court.
|
| Kenedi v. Hungary | Hungary | 2009 | International / ECHR | The reluctance of the ministry to comply with the courts’ rulings and to allow unrestricted access to the documents for the purpose of historical research constitutes a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.
|
| Lachezar Lisicov (Desant daily) v. the President of Bulgaria | Bulgaria | 2010 | First instance | The Access to Public Information Act requires public authorities to issue explicit decisions when public information is requested, and to disclose the minutes of a private meeting between heads of state where the contents of the meeting were not confidential.
|
| Lake v. Phoenix | United States | 2009 | Supreme | City was obliged to disclose metadata (electronic information concerning the history of an electronic document) pursuant to state freedom of information law.
|
| Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission | Philippines | 1987 | Supreme | The Constitution requires government agencies to to provide information upon request; if they do not want to disclose information, they carry the burden of proving that the information is not of public concern or, if it is of public concern, that the information has been specifically exempted by law. Moreover, a citizen does not need to show any legal or special interest in order to establish his or her right to information.
|
| Marina Machneva v. St. Petersburg City Department of the Federal Bailiff Service | Russia | 2010 | First instance | A government agency must disclose to the applicant files of all actions taken in response to a disciplinary complaint, except for personal information of other people.
|
| Milner v. Department of the Navy | United States | 2011 | Supreme | FOIA Exemption 2, which protects from disclosure material “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency” does not apply to military explosives data and maps because Exemption 2 covers strictly human resource matters.
|
| Mittalsteel South Africa LTD (Formerly Iscor Ltd) v. Hlatshwayo | South Africa | 2006 | Supreme | The definition of “public bodies” subject to disclosure under PAIA includes state-owned companies that perform a government function and are under the control of the state, even if indirectly, and a formerly state-owned iron company must thus release records of meeting minutes.
|
| Nagoya Citizen Ombudsmen v. Director of the Central Japan Economics and Industry Bureau of the Ministry of Economics and Industry | Japan | 2001 | First instance | The business information exemption to FOIA only applies where there is objective evidence indicating that disclosure would result in injury to the “rights, competitive standing, or other legitimate interest” of a business entity or individual.
|
| Namit Sharma v Union of India | India | 2012 | Supreme | Information Commissions are judicial tribunals performing functions of judicial and quasi-judicial nature; appointment of legally qualified, judicially trained and experienced persons ensures better administration of justice and enhances public confidence in the work of the Commissions.
|
| Naumocheva v. Khimki Town Administration (Moscow Oblast) | Russia | 2011 | Appellate | According to the Russian RTI law everyone has the right to information about the activity of the state, including information about the exact route and dimensions of a planned highway.
|
| Navarro Gutierrez v. Lizano Fait | Costa Rica | 2002 | Constitutional | Because information of public character is necessary to the formation of free and open public discourse guaranteed by the Constitution, the Central Bank of Costa Rica must disclose a report by the International Monetary Fund containing information on Costa Rica’s economy.
|
| Nazarova v. Ministry of Justice | Russia | 2010 | Supreme | A requester does not need to provide reasons in order to be able to have access to the government’s register of normative legal acts.
|
| Phinjo Gombu v. Tom Mitchinson, Assistant Commissioner et al. | Canada | 2002 | Appellate | Refusal to disclose information about campaign contributions, including names, addresses and phone numbers of contributors, in electronic format was unreasonable given the importance of furthering the democratic process through public scrutiny and the minimal intrusion on privacy.
|
| President of the Republic of South Africa. v. M & G Media Ltd. | South Africa | 2010 | Supreme | Under the South African Bill of Rights and the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000, conclusory affidavits provided by the President to justify the secrecy of a report of the 2002 Zimbabwe elections prepared by two judges for President Mbeki were insufficient to justify non-disclosure.
|
| Rosen Bosev (Capital Weekly) v. Director of the Government Information Service | Bulgaria | 2007 | First instance | When a member of the public requests access to an agreement between a government agency and a third party, the government agency is required to seek consent of the third party to disclose the information; mere assertion that disclosure would harm commercial interests does not suffice.
|
| S.P. Gupta v. President of India | India | 1981 | Supreme | Non-disclosure of information is justifiable only if disclosure would be injurious to the public interest, and injury to the reputation of a public official should not be a consideration.
|
| Scobin v. Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology | Russia | 2006 | First instance | The responsible agency must publish national consumer product standards on its official website and may not charge fees for hard copies of the documents.
|
| Shalit v. Peres | Israel | 1990 | Supreme | Coalition agreements between parliamentary factions, concluded in anticipation of the formation of a government and dealing with the functions of the legislative or executive authorities ought to be published.
|
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain | India | 1975 | Supreme | Rules of evidence that prevent disclosure of certain government documents in court proceedings may be overridden if the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in keeping documents secret.
|
| Sweden and Turco v. Council of the European Union, Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom, and Commission of the European Communities | European Union | 2008 | International / EU | The Court annulled the decision of the Council that refused access to a document containing the opinion of the Council's legal service on a proposal for a directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States.
|
| Társaság A Szabadságjogokért (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) v Hungary | Hungary | 2009 | International / ECHR | Social watchdogs and others have an Article 10 right to access state-held information on a matter of public importance in order to enable free public debate on such matters. The privacy rights of public figures cannot prevail over the right of access in such circumstances.
|
| The CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. | India | 2009 | Appellate | Asset declarations of Supreme Court judges should be disclosed if there is public interest in disclosure; where the interest is shown, the authority should consult the judge concerned and balance the interest in disclosure against privacy concerns.
|
| Toktakunov v. Kyrgyzstan | Kyrgyzstan | 2011 | International / UN | The right to information held by public bodies is grounded within the right to freedom of expression; and Kyrgyzstan violated this right by not disclosing information concerning death sentences pursuant to secret bylaws.
|
| Transnet Ltd. and Another v. SA Metal Machinery Co (PTY) Ltd. | South Africa | 2005 | Supreme | Parties relying on harm to third party interests to justify refusals must show that these harms are "not simply possible, but probable". A confidentiality clause cannot shield a contract of a state company with a third party from disclosure. Requesters need not show legitimate reasons for requesting information.
|
| Trustees For the Time Being of the Biowatch Trust v. Registrar Genetic Resources and Others | South Africa | 2005 | Appellate | When denying a request for information about genetically modified corps, the burden of proof lies with the government agency. If the governmental agency is of opinion that information request is not sufficiently specific, it must assist the requester in the process.
|
| UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v. Ministry of Defense | United Kingdom | 2011 | Appellate | Information concerning detention and interrogation policies is of high public interest and should be disclosed; the public interest in access to diplomatic assurances that detainees would not be tortured outweighs any harm that might flow from disclosure; information concerning the Special Forces and legally privileged communications are exempt; and the personal data exemption is not implicated in a request for non-identifying statistical details.
|
| Union of India (UOI) v. Respondent: Association for Democratic Reforms and Another; with People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another v. Union of India (UOI) and Another | India | 2002 | Supreme | Citizens have a right to know about public functionaries and candidates for office, including their assets and criminal and educational backgrounds, which right is derived from the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
|
| Van Huyssteen and Others NNO v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others | South Africa | 1996 | First instance | A constitutional provision (retained in the current constitution) that every person has a right to information that is “required” for the exercise or protection of any of his or her rights should be interpreted to mean “reasonably required”.
|
| Voronin v. Kirovsky District Administration of St. Petersburg | Russia | 2010 | First instance | Members of the public and media have the right to attend meetings of “collegial” public bodies (as defined in Russia’s RTI law) as a way to access information about the activities of these bodies.
|
| XYZ v. Victoria Police | Australia | 2010 | First instance | Freedom of information is an indispensable part of freedom of expression, but is not absolute, and protecting the integrity of an investigation into illegal police acts provides sufficient justification to overcome the personal interest of the applicant in the disclosure of documents related to an investigation.
|
| Yurij I. Vdovin v. Federal Executive Authorities | Russia | 2005 | First instance | Federal executive authorities must publish certain information, specified in a government decree, on the Internet.
|
| Zárate v. Federal Electoral Institute | Mexico | 2004 | Supreme | The right to receive information about organization, work, financial resources and statutes of political parties is an element of the right to information, which, in turn, is a basis for the free exercise of other fundamental rights. Authorities have to guarantee access to financial information of political parties, including monthly salaries and other benefits of the party leaders.
|
| Zolotonosov v. Interdepartmental Commission for the Protection of State Secrets under the President of the Russian Federation | Russia | 2011 | First instance | Regulations that set forth procedures for declassifying documents and for extending terms of classification affect the rights of the general public and must therefore be publicly available.
|
| Center for International Environmental Law v. Office Of The United States Trade Representative Et Al. | United States | 2012 | First instance | Mere existence of a confidentiality agreement is not itself an adequate basis for the lawful classification of information; the party withholding information has a burden to justify how disclosure of the material would cause the ‘requisite degree of harm’ to the legitimate interest invoked.
|
| Casas Chardon v. Ministry of Transportation | Peru | 2009 | Constitutional | Senior officials have to disclose asset declarations concerning their income and other benefits paid by the public sector and also concerning their real estate interests and movable property recorded in a public register. Given that all detailed asset declarations are made available to the national audit agency and only a summary to the public, information on private income is properly restricted on the grounds of privacy and security of a person.
|
| The Prosecution in the trial of Ríos Montt v. Ministry of National Defense | Guatemala | 2008 | Constitutional | The public authority must release military operational plans from the past in the prosecution of a former military leader because the plans do not constitute “state secrets” and thus are not protected from disclosure under the exemption in Article 30 of the Constitution.
|
| Rob Evans v. Information Commissioner | United Kingdom | 2012 | Appellate | Advocacy correspondence between the heir to the throne and government ministers does not fall within constitutional convention and does not deserve special protection; correspondence in which interests of charitable enterprises are promoted concerns matters affecting public policy and the public purse and thus there is a strong public interest in its disclosure that in this case outweighs the interests in secrecy.
|
| In re Articles 27 and 42 of Decree 1799 of 2000 | Colombia | 2003 | Constitutional | Information unrelated to maintaining national security and with no material link to protecting territorial integrity and defending democratic institutions or to the enjoyment of fundamental individual rights, including the right to privacy, may not be restricted.
|
| ADC v. PAMI | Argentina | 2012 | Supreme | The right of access to public information is provided for in the Constitution. The state has the duty to adopt legislative or regulatory measures to guarantee this right. There is a direct and immediate relationship between access to public information and the distribution of public advertising budgets.
|
| In re the Constitutionality of Provisions on Record Keeping of Governmental Sessions | Hungary | 2006 | Constitutional | The government is under the obligation to keep records for public information, whether for a short or a long period of time, because it would otherwise directly and seriously restrict the right of access to public information. An act should regulate the record keeping of governmental sessions.
|
| Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another v. Union of India and Another | India | 2003 | Supreme | Voters have a fundamental right to know relevant qualifications of candidates for office, including information about their income and assets. Accordingly, a section of a law stating that candidates could not be compelled to disclose any information about themselves other than their criminal records was unconstitutional.
|
| Non-Governmental Organizations Center Razgrad v. the National Revenue Agency - Razgrad | Bulgaria | 2010 | Supreme | When tax data of a third party is sought the respective authority must seek consent of the third party to disclose information; the burden to obtain the consent cannot be shifted to the applicant.
|
| SA Airlink (PTY) Limited v. Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency | South Africa | 2012 | Appellate | Burden to justify a refusal to disclose information rests on a public body, not the requester. Parties relying on harm to third party interests to justify refusals must show that these harms are “not simply possible, but probable”. A confidentiality clause cannot shield a contract of a state body with a third party from disclosure.
|
| In re Constitutionality of Law No. 20.088 | Chile | 2005 | Constitutional | Constitutional amendments providing unrestricted public access to asset declarations of public officials are constitutional and do not conflict with the right of privacy guaranteed by Article 19.
|
| SNC Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Canadian International Development Agency) | Canada | 2007 | Appellate | Records of auditor’s working papers regarding a project involving Canadian International Development Agency and a private corporation do not constitute “confidential third party information” and “personal information”.
|
| Osland v. Secretary to the Department of Justice | Australia | 2010 | Supreme | When considering the application of the public interest override, a Tribunal need not conclude that the circumstances are exceptional; rather the Tribunal must, before the power can be exercised, identify a high-threshold public interest and conclude that the evidence is capable of supporting an opinion that the public interest requires that access to the documents be granted.
|
| Clutchco (Pty) Ltd v. Davis | South Africa | 2005 | Supreme | Constitution and ATI Act allow for access to information held by private parties when reasonably required; the petitioner shareholder’s need for corporate documents was insufficiently pressing in this case.
|
| European Commission v. Agrofert Holding | European Union | 2012 | International / EU | EU institutions may rely on a general presumption that disclosure of documents exchanged between the European Commission and undertakings in the course of merger control proceedings undermines both commercial interests and the objective of investigative activities. The applicant may nonetheless demonstrate overriding public interest in disclosure. The presumption does not apply to internal EU documents once the proceedings are closed.
|
| Jose Maria Sison v. Council of The European Union | European Union | 2007 | International / EU | European Union institutions have a margin of appreciation when making complex and delicate decisions regarding the protection of interests of the particularly sensitive and essential nature under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001; documents held by the public authorities concerning persons or entities suspected of terrorism and coming within the category of sensitive documents as defined by Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001 must not be disclosed to the public in order not to prejudice the effectiveness of the operational fight against terrorism and thereby undermine the protection of public security.
|
| European Commission v. Bavarian Lager | European Union | 2010 | International / EU | Where a request based on Regulation No 1049/2001 (Access to Documents Regulation) seeks to obtain documents including personal data, Regulation No 1045/2001 (Data Protection Regulation) becomes applicable in its entirety. When requesting minutes of a meeting between the Commission and a member state including the names of the participants, the requester has to establish an express and legitimate purpose or need for disclosure.
|
| Institute for Democracy in South Africa v. African National Congress, et al. | South Africa | 2005 | Appellate | Access to information may only be pursued through the Promotion of Access to Information Act (not through Section 32 of the Constitution). Political parties are considered “private bodies” when access to information about private donations is sought.
|
| Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v. European Central Bank | European Union | 2012 | International / EU | The European Central Bank is obliged to refuse access to a document if there is public interest in non-disclosure due to impact on the financial policy of the Union or a Member State. Weighing that public interest against an “overriding public interest in disclosure” is not provided for by EU law.
|
| Gillberg v. Sweden | Sweden | 2012 | International / ECHR | Situations when a public employee refuses to make research material available, where (i) such material belongs to a university and (ii) a university is ready to disclose it, and where (iii) the employee does not owe any statutory duty of secrecy towards research participants, are not protected under Article 10 of the Convention (a right not to impart information). Finding for the otherwise would impinge on the right to receive information in the form of access to the public documents concerned.
|
| IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v. European Commission | European Union | 2012 | International / EU | When a person is denied access to information originating from a Member State on the basis of that state’s objection, the Court has a duty to consult disputed documents in camera in order to assess whether access to them could validly be refused on the basis of the exceptions provided for in Regulation 1049/2001.
|
| Sweden v. European Commission and MyTravel Group Plc. | European Union | 2011 | International / EU | Where an EU institution refuses to provide access to a document, it is under a duty to explain how access to that document might actually and specifically undermine the interest protected by an exception contained in Regulation 1049/2001 upon which that institution relies. The requirements for protecting the decision-making process are less acute when the process is closed, rather than ongoing.
|
| Sophie In’t Veld v. European Commission | European Union | 2013 | International / EU | Negotiation of international agreements such as ACTA justifies a certain level of discretion to allow mutual trust between negotiators and the development of a free and effective discussion. Since, in the European Union, conducting such negotiations falls in the domain of the executive, public participation in the process is necessarily restricted. Overriding public interest in disclosure does not apply to the mandatory exceptions under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
|
| The Information Commissioner of Canada v. The Executive Director of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board and NAV CANADA | Canada | 2006 | Appellate | Air Traffic Control communications do not fall under the financial, commercial, scientific or technical information exemption because they do not constitute commercial or technical information. They are also not protected under the Privacy Act since communications themselves are not personal information.
|
| Department of Health v. Information Commissioner and Rt Hon John Healey MP and Nicholas Cecil | United Kingdom | 2012 | First instance | FOIA exemption on disclosure of information relating to the formulation or development of government policy can be outweighed by a public interest to disclose. Public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information.
|
| Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association | Canada | 2010 | Supreme | Freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter includes the right to request access to government documents. The omission of a public interest override from information disclosure exemptions relating to law enforcement and solicitor-client privilege does not violate the right to freedom of expression under the Charter. The minister’s discretional right to withhold such information has to be reasonable and in accordance with the public interest.
|
| Qoboshiyane NO v. Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd. | South Africa | 2012 | Appellate | If information falls under one of the exemptions from disclosure under PAIA, it must nevertheless be released if an overriding public interest in disclosure exists. In a case of maladministration of municipal funds, the public interest overrides any harm that may result from disclosure and disclosure is mandated.
|
| H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) | Canada | 2006 | Supreme | Third parties who apply for judicial review of a decision to disclose information under section 44 of the Access to Information Act may rely on the section 19 privacy exemption, and are not limited to the section 20 confidential business information exemption.
|
| Sweden v. Commission | European Union | 2007 | International / EU | If a member state denies under Article 4(5) of the Regulation consent for a document held by an EU institution to be released, it must ground the refusal in one of the exceptions under the Regulation.
|
| Commission v. API | European Union | 2010 | International / EU | EU institutions may rely on a general presumption that disclosure of pleadings provided by them in cases before the European courts undermine the purpose of court proceedings and access can be refused without an individualized assessment of the documents. The presumption no longer exists once a case has been closed and a similar presumption relating to interference with investigations and audits is also inappropriate after judgment has been delivered in infringement proceedings. The onus for proving overriding public interest in disclosure is on the party requesting disclosure.
|
| Internationaler Hilfsfonds v. Commission | European Union | 2010 | International / EU | Requiring the applicant to resubmit his request for access to documents, following the institution’s definitive refusal to provide such access, is contrary to the objective of a two-stage process established by the Regulation No 1049/2001, namely - to guarantee swift and straightforward processing of applications for access to documents.
|
| Commission v. Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau | European Union | 2010 | International / EU | EU institutions may rely on a general presumption that disclosure of documents in the administrative file, related to state legal aid review process, in principle undermines protection of the objectives of investigation activities. To rebut such presumption, the interested party has to demonstrate that the requested document is not covered by that presumption, or that there is a higher public interest justifying the disclosure of the document.
|
| Nairobi Law Monthly Company Limited v. Kenya Electricity Generating Company and Others | Kenya | 2013 | First instance | Article 35(1) of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution grants to “every citizen … the right of access to (a) information held by the State; and (b) information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom.” In this decision, the first by Kenya’s High Court to interpret Article 35, the Kenya Electricity Generating Company was found to be a state organ or public entity and therefore obliged to provide information to citizens under 35(1)a. However, if the respondent were not considered a state entity, a citizen would have to show that he or she required the information for the exercise or protection of another right. In this case, the Nairobi Law Monthly claimed the right of access to information in order to exercise its rights under Article 33(1) freedom of expression (including the freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas) and Article 34 (1) re freedom of the media. The Court disagreed. The petitioner’s interpretation would place a positive obligation on everyone to provide information and not just a negative obligation not to interfere with the exercise of the media’s freedoms, thereby violating other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Moreover, the Court ruled that the petitioner is a legal person, not a citizen, and thus not entitled to Article 35(1) ‘citizen’ rights. Accordingly, the court found no violation of the petitioner’s rights.
|
