No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
There is without doubt a radical difference between the culture of open government in Sweden and the until recently prevailing culture of secrecy in Britain and within the European Union. From a classic British sceptic’s perspective, “public access to official documents is deemed unnecessary, since British democracy has functioned for so long without it”. The British “have always relied heavily, although not always successfully, on the concept of ‘ministerial responsibility’ to Parliament in order to secure public trust in government”. The mainstream of eighteenth-century British political thought held that the nation’s political well-being required the foundation of an informed gentleman citizenry. By the middle decades of the eighteenth-century, the movement away from the idea of a citizenry composed exclusively of gentlemen was firmly established on both sides of the Atlantic. It became increasingly acknowledged that men of the “meaner sort” should have the right to hold opinions on public affairs and ought to be allowed to protest against governments and laws they deemed improper.
1 Davis, R. W. “Public access to community documents: a fundamental human right?” 3 (1999) European Integration online Papers (EIoP), URL: <http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999–008a.htm>, visited Feb. 10, 2000Google Scholar.
2 Brown, R. D., The Strength of a People: The Idea of an Informed Citizenry in America 1650–1870 (Chapel Hill, Duke U.P., 1996), 43–48 Google Scholar.
3 Davis, above n 1.
4 Popper, K.R. The Open Society and Its Enemies 5th ed. (Routledge, London, 1966), 121 Google Scholar.
5 Popper, K.R. État Paternaliste ou État Minmal (Éditions de l’Aire, Paris, 1997), 49 Google Scholar.
6 For an account of the origins and historical development of the principle of publicity, see Hirschfeldt J., “1766 Års Tryckfrihetsförordning och Offentlighetsprincipens Utveckling” (1998) Förvaltningsrättslig Tidskrift 1 and Anderson, S. V., “Public Access to Government Files in Sweden” 21 (1973) The American Journal of Comparative Law, 419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Wennergren, B., “Civic Information, Administrative Publicity” 36 (1970) Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Cited in Wennergren, Ibid at 243.
9 Boberg, S., Gustav III och tryckfriheten 1774–1787 (Natur och Kultur, 1951), 20 Google Scholar.
10 Eek H., “1766 Års Tryckfrihetsförordning, dess Tillkomst och Betydelse i Rättsutvecklingen” (1943) Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 186.
11 Hirschfeldt, above n 6 at 10.
12 Parliament of Sweden, Committee on the Constitution, Memorial no. 2, 2 June 1809, cited in Andersson, above n 6 at 421.
13 Committee of Independent Experts, First report on allegations regarding fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the European Commission, 15 March 1999.
14 Curtin, D. and Meijer, H., “The Principle of Open Government in Schengen and the European Union: Democratic Retrogression?” 32 (1995) C.M.L.Rev., 392 Google Scholar.
15 For a description and a comparative analysis of the Swedish provisions on public access to documents, see Österdahl, I., “Openness v. Secrecy: Public Access to Documents in Sweden and the European Union” 23 (1998) E.L.Rev., 336 Google Scholar.
16 Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Freedom of the Press Act provides:
“The right of access to official documents may be restricted only if restriction is necessary having regard to
1. the security of the Realm or its relations with a foreign state or an international organisation;
2. the central finance policy, monetary policy, or foreign exchange policy of the Realm;
3. the inspection, control or other supervisory activities of a public authority;
4. the interest of preventing or prosecuting crime;
5. the public economic interest;
6. the protection of the personal integrity or economic circumstances of private subjects; or the preservation of animal or plant species.
Any restriction of the right of access to official documents shall be scrupulously specified in the provisions of a special act of law, or, if this is deemed more appropriate in a particular case, in another act of law to which the special act makes reference. With the authority of such a provision the Government may, however, issue more detailed regulations concerning the application of the provision by statutory order.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph two of this Article, the Riksdag or the Government may be empowered, by means of a provision such as is referred to therein, to authorise, having regard to the circumstances, that a particular official document shall be made accessible.”
17 Requests must under the Swedish Constitution be dealt with forthwith, or as quickly as possible.
18 Declaration by the Kingdom of Sweden on open government and Declaration made by the Union in response. Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, Final Act, OJ 1994 C 241/397.
19 Ibid (my emphasis).
20 Ibid (my emphasis).
21 Declaration 45 by the Republic of Finland on transparency (my emphasis). Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, Final Act, OJ 1994 C 241/397.
22 The transcripts are available at the Swedish Parliament’s website, URL: <http://www.riksdagen.se/debatt/eunprot/>, visited Feb. 12, 2000.
23 BVerfGE 37, 271; BVerfGE 73, 339.
24 BVerfGE 89, 155.
25 This interpretation of Article 5(1) of Chapter 10 of the Instrument of Government in the travaux préparatoires has been widely debated by Swedish constitutional scholars, see Strömberg, H., “Någa Rättsliga Problem vid en EU-anslutning” (1994) Förvaltningsrättslig Tidskrift, 277–279; Nergelius, J., Konstitutionellt Rättighetsskydd (Norstedts, 1996), 544 Google Scholar and following; Wiklund, O., EG-domstolens Tolkningsutrymme (Juristförlaget, 1997), 217 Google Scholar and following; Nergelius, J., Amsterdamfördraget och EU:s Institutionella Maktbalans (Norstedts 1998), 165 Google Scholar and following; Melin, M. and Schäder, G., EU:s Konstitution 4th ed. (Norstedts, 1999), 168 Google Scholar and following.
26 Öberg, U., “Europeiska Offentlighetsprinciper: ett Svenskt Dilemma?” in Bernitz, U., Gustavsson, S. & Oxelheim, L. (eds), Europaperspektiv 2000—Årsbok för Europaforskning inom Ekonomi, Juridik och Statskunskap (Santérus, 2000), 195 Google Scholar.
27 Interpellation 1993/94:134 om offentlighetsprincipen och EU.
28 Regeringens proposition 1997/1998:58 om Amsterdamfördraget.
29 OJ 1992 C 191/101.
30 OJ 1993 C 156/5.
31 OJ 1993 C 166/4.
32 Bulletin of the European Communities, 6-1993, p. 16, point I.22.
33 OJ 1993 L 340/41, (hereafter referred to as the “Code of Conduct”).
34 OJ 1993 L 340/43, amended by Council Decision of 6 December 1996 amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents OJ 1996 L 325/19.
35 OJ 1994 L 46/58, amended by Commission Decision of 19 September 1996 amending Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents (96/567/Euratom, ECSC, EC) OJ 1996 L 247/45.
36 Case C–58/94 Netherlands v. Council [1996] ECR I–2169.
37 Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 34.
38 Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 36.
39 Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 37.
40 Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 39.
41 Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR I–1759, para 33.
42 Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Case C–58/94 Netherlands v. Council [1996] ECR I–2171, para 19.
43 Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 19.
44 Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 20.
45 See also Ragnemalm, H., “Démocratie et Transparence: sur le Droit Général d’Accès des Citoyens de l’Union Européenne aux Documents Détenus par les Institutions Communautaires”, in Scritti in onore di Guiseppe Federico Mancini, (Rome, Giuffrè, 1998), 809, 823 and 830Google Scholar.
46 Case C–58/94 Netherlands v. Council, [1996] ECR I–2169, para 39.
47 Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 21.
48 In favour of such an interpretation, see Bergerès, M-C., 2 (1997) Recueil Dalloz Sirey Jur., 19 Google Scholar; de Smijter, E., 3 (1996) Revue du Marché Unique Européen, 257 Google Scholar; Armstrong, K. A., “Citizenship of the Union? Lessons from Carvel and the Guardian” 59 (1996) Modern Law Review, 585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chiti, E., “Further Developments of Access to Community Information: Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council of the European Union” 2 (1996) European Public Law, 569 Google Scholar. Some commentators, such as Lafay, F. “L’Accès aux Documents du Conseil de l’Union: Contribution à une Problématique de la Transparence en Droit Communautaire” 33(1) (1997) Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen, 49 Google Scholar take the view that the Court, albeit revealing the essence of a general principle of access to documents in Community law, failed to pursue its reasoning and did not recognise the existence of a general principle. A minority view holds that a general principle of access to documents probably does not exist in the present state of Community law, see Dyrberg, P., “El Acceso Pblico a los Documentos y las Autoridades Comunitarias” 2 (1997) Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 410 Google Scholar, and Dyrberg, P., “Current issues in the Debate on Public Access to Documents” 24 (1999) E.L.Rev., 157 Google Scholar.
49 Case C–58/94 Netherlands v. Council, [1996] ECR I–2169, para 38.
50 Case C–69/89 Nakajima v. Council [1991] ECR I–2069, para 49.
51 Nakajima v. Council, ibid at para 50.
52 Case C–137/92 P Commission v. BASF and Others [1994] ECR I–2555, paras 75 and 76.
53 See also Bradley K. St C., “La Transparence de l’Union Européenne: une Évidence ou un Trompe l’Œuil?” (1999) Cahiers de Droit Européen, 353–354 and de Leeuw, M., “WWF (UK) v. Commission of the European Communities” 3 (1997) European Public Law, 349 Google Scholar. The President of the Court of First Instance seems to take a different view, see Vesterdorf, B., “Transparency—Not Just A Vogue Word” 22 (1999) Fordham International Law Journal, 915–916 Google Scholar.
54 Case T–14/98 Hautala v. Council, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 July 1999 (not yet reported) (First Chamber: Judges Vesterdorf (rapporteur), Pirrung and Vilaras).
55 Case C–353/99 P, OJ C 333/20.
56 Lag (1992:1775) om ändringar i sekretesslagen (Prop. 1992/93:120, bet. 1992/93:KU11, rskr 1992/93:77).
57 Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community OJ 1983 L 43/1 (hereafter referred to as the Archive Regulation).
58 OJ 1958 L 17/406 (hereafter referred to as Regulation No 3).
59 COM/92/56/FINAL OJ 1992 C 72/15.
60 Resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation (EEC) on the security measures applicable to classified information produced or transmitted in connection with EEC or Euratom activities OJ 1993 C 176/60.
61 Bulletin of the European Communities, 11-1993, point 1.7.3.
62 These rules have been supplemented by internal rules of the Council and Commission, adopted on the basis of Articles 151(3) and 162(2) EC, on security screening of persons authorised to have access to classified information. See Council Decision 98/319/EC of 27 April 1998 relating to the procedures whereby officials and employees of the General Secretariat of the Council may be allowed access to classified information held by the Council and OJ 1998 L 140/12 and Commission Decision 99/218/EC of 25 February 1999 relating to the procedures whereby officials and employees of the European Commission may be allowed access to classified information held by the Commission (notified under document number C(1999) 423) OJ 1999 L 80/22. The legality of the Council’s decision was challenged before the Court of First Instance (Case T–105/98 Dumont de Voitel v. Council OJ 1998 C 299/37), but the application was declared inadmissible by Order of 22 March 1999 (unreported in the ECR).
63 At a late stage of completion of this article, the Commission adopted its proposal for a regulation on public access to documents on 26 January 2000. The proposal can be consulted on the Eur-lex website, URL: <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/dat/2000/en-500PC0030.html>, visited June 13, 2000.
64 “The Conference agreed that the principles and conditions referred to in Article 255 will allow a Member State to request the Commission or the Council not to communicate to third parties a document originating from that State without its prior agreement.”
65 Section 552(b)(1) of Title 5, U.S. Code, provides that the Freedom of Information Act’s general provisions governing disclosure of government information do not apply to matters that are (a) specifically authorised under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defence or foreign policy and (b) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order. Under a prior Executive Order (12356), disclosure of “foreign government information” was presumed to damage national security. In practice, this meant that foreign government information was classifiable in perpetuity. Executive Order 12958 removed foreign government information’s iconic status. Today, such information can remain classified for longer than 25 years if release would “seriously and demonstrably impair either relations between the United States and a foreign government” or “on-going diplomatic activities”.
66 157 F. 3d 735.
67 Case T–174/95 Svenska Journalistförbundet v. Council [1988] ECR II-2289 (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition: Judges Lenaerts, Lindh, Azizi, Cooke (rapporteur) and Jaeger).
68 Besselink, L.F.M., “Curing a ‘Childhood Sickness’?: On Direct Effect, Internal Effect, Primacy and Derogation from Civil Rights: the Netherlands Council of State Judgment in the Metten Case” 3 (1996) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
69 Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 (ex 85 and 86) of the Treaty OJ 1962 13/204.
70 Decision adopted by the General Council of the WTO on 18 July 1996 regarding procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1).
71 The Council of Europe adopted a procedure for granting public access to documents issued with a security classification at its 641st meeting of the 15 and 18 September 1998 (CM(97)54, CM(98)81, GR-AB(98)10).
72 For an analysis of the codification of the right of access in Article 255 the Amsterdam Treaty, see Öberg, U., “Public Access to Documents after the Entry into Force of the Amsterdam Treaty: Much Ado About Nothing?” 2 (1998), European Integration online Papers (EIoP), URL: <http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1998–008a.htm>, visited Feb. 10, 2000.Google Scholar
73 Terms of reference of the Group of Specialists on access to official information (DH-S-AC).
74 The reports from the first four meetings of the Group of Specialists on access to official information have been released for “personal use” in my current research by the Council of Europe under its provisions on public access to documents, with the express restriction that their existence may be cited, but not reproduced in extenso.
75 Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Group of Specialists on access to official information (DH-S-AC), Report from the third meeting 9–12 March 1999, [DH-S-AC 99(5)].
76 The Group of Specialists has decided to hold a hearing with representatives of selected NGOs and specialists on Freedom of information at its fifth meeting, which took place from 22 to 25 February 2000. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Group of Specialists on access to official information (DH-S-AC), Report from the fourth meeting 5–8 October 1999, [DH-S-AC 99(8)].
77 Case C–58/94 Netherlands v. Council [1996] ECR I–2169.
78 As previously noted, the Commission’s proposal for a regulation is limited to public access to documents held by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and does not constitute “general rules on the right of public access to documents held by the Community institutions”, see Netherlands v. Council, ibid at para 37.