¹ Most recently access laws have been introduced at state level in Germany (Brandenburg (1998), Berlin (1999) and Schleswig-Holstein (2000)). In the UK the FOI Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and is currently being considered by House of Lords.Google Scholar

² FOI Acts have been introduced in the Czech Republic and in Latvia while draft FOI laws are being considered in Bulgaria, Georgia and Moldova.Google Scholar

³ The Directive on Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment (Directive 90/313/EEC) established a framework for access to environmental information held by public authorities of the member states. In July 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive on access to environmental information aimed at strengthening the access rights granted under Directive 90/313/EEC.Google Scholar

⁴ The Council of Europe is currently working on a legal instrument aimed at conferring a right of access to information of the public authorities of member states.Google Scholar

⁵ See below.Google Scholar

⁶ These provisions impose obligations on public bodies to publish information concerning inter alia their structures and functions, the types of records they hold, and the rules, procedures and guidelines used by them in arriving at decisions: ss.15 & 16.Google Scholar

⁷ Section 17 of the Act confers a right of amendment of personal information where it is incorrect, misleading or incomplete.Google Scholar

⁸ The Act introduces for the first time in Irish law a statutory right to be given reasons for administrative decisions which affect one.Google Scholar

⁹ There are three stages to the appeals system: the first involves internal review of the original decision, the second consists of the bringing of an appeal to the Information Commissioner, an independent office established under the Act. The Commissioner has the power to order release of records. Finally, an appeal may be brought against the Commissioner's decision to the High Court on a point of law.Google Scholar

¹⁰ s. 6(5).Google Scholar

¹¹ There are 12 main exemption provisions, many of which encompass a number of grounds of exemption. They cover records relating to the cabinet; deliberative processes; functions and negotiations of public bodies; parliament, court and legal professional privilege; law enforcement and public safety; security, defence and international relations; information obtained in confidence; commercially sensitive information, personal information, research and natural resources; financial and economic interests of the sate and public bodies; and existing legislative restrictions on disclosure.Google Scholar

¹² Figures supplied by the FOI Central Policy Unit, Department of Finance.Google Scholar

¹³ See Hazell, R. Freedom of Information In Australia, Canada and New Zealand: Report to the Cabinet Office, Canberra, 1993.Google Scholar

¹⁴ There were 117 stories based on records to which access was obtained under the FOI Act in one national newspaper (The Irish Times) over a 12 month period up to September 2000.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Annual Report of the Information Commissioner, 1999 available at the Commissioner's website at www.irlgove.ie/oic.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Re Mr AAY and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Information Commissioner, unreported, 28/01/1999, Case No.98103; Re Henry Ford & Son Ltd and Office of Public Works.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Re Henry Ford & Son Ltd and Office of Public Works; Re Sunday Tribune and the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, Information Commissioner, unreported, 27/7/1999, Case No.99168.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Re Mr. Martin Wall, The Sunday Tribune and the Department of Health and Children, Information Commissioner, unreported, 31/3/1999, Case No. 98078.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Re Ms ABT, Mr ABU and the North Eastern Health Board, Information Commissioner, unreported, 21/12/1999, Case No.99347.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid.Google Scholar

²¹ Re Ms ABY and the Department of Education and Science Information Commissioner, unreported, 6/7/2000, Case No. 98169.Google Scholar

²² Ibid.Google Scholar

²³ Re Mr AAK and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Information Commissioner, unreported, 9/11/1998, Case No. 98032; Re Messrs AAU and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Information Commissioner, unreported, 14/01/1999, Case No. 98086, Re Mr AAY and Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs Information Commissioner, unreported, 28/1/1999, Case No. 98103.Google Scholar

²⁴ Re Ms ABY and the Department of Education and Science Information Commissioner, unreported, 6/7/2000, Case No. 98169; Re Mr ABL and the North Western Health Board, Information Commissioner, unreported, 3/12/1999, Case No. 99273.Google Scholar

²⁵ Re Mr Richard Oakley, The Sunday Tribune newspaper and the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas Information Commissioner, unreported, 27/7/1999, Case No. 99168.Google Scholar

²⁶ s. 34(3).Google Scholar

²⁷ Examples of such political backlash could be found in the states of Victoria and Queensland in Australia.Google Scholar

²⁸ Review of Administrative and Procedural Arrangements Governing FOI Report by the FOI Civil Service Users’ Network, December 1999.Google Scholar

²⁹ See report of the meeting entitled OIC guidance note in relation to sections 20, 21 and 26 of the FOI Act published on the Information Commissioner's website at ww.irlgov.ie/oic/228e_3c2.htm.Google Scholar

³⁰ s. 33(2).Google Scholar

³¹ Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament, and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, COM(2000) 30 final/2.Google Scholar

³² 93/730/EC, [1993] OJ L340/41.Google Scholar

³³ Respectively [1993] OJ L340/43 and [1994] OJ L46/58.Google Scholar

³⁴ Parliament Decision on public access to Documents 10 July 1997, [1997] OJ L263/27.Google Scholar

³⁵ Case C-58/94 Netherlands v Council [1996] ECR I-2169; Case T-105/95 WWF v Commission [1997] ECR II-313; Carvel and Guardian Newspapers v Council [1995] ECR 11–2765; Interporc Im- und Export v Commission [1998] ECR II-231 (Interporc I); Case T-174/95 Svenska Journalistförbundet v Council [1988] ECR II-2289; Case T-14/98 Hautala v Council, unreported, judgment of 19 July 1999; Case T-83/96 Van der Wal v Commission [1998] ECR II-545; Case T-610/97 Carlsen and others v Council [1998] ECR II-485; Case T-188/97 Rothmans International v Commission, unreported, judgment of the 19 July 1999; Case T-309/97 Bavarian Lager Com Ltd v Commission, unreported, judgment of 14 October 1999; Case T-106/99 Meyer v Commission, unreported, order of 27 October 1999; Case T-92/98 Interporc Im- und Export v Commission, unreported, judgment of 7 December 1999 (Interproc II); Case C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P Netherlands and Van der Wal v Commission, unreported, judgment of 11 January 200; Case T-199/98 Kuijer v Council, unreported, judgment of 6 April 2000.Google Scholar

³⁶ Netherlands v Council, ibid., Van der Wal, ibid.Google Scholar

³⁷ WWF v Commission, op. cit., above, n. 33; Interporc Im- und Export v Commission (Interporc I), op. cit., above, n. 33; Hautala v Council, op. cit., above, n. 33.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Curtin, D. “Citizens’ Fundamental Right of Access to EU Information: An Evolving Digital Passepartout?” 37 Common Market Law Review (2000), 7; Öberg, U “Recent Developments in Public Access to Documents held by European Community Institutions” (1998) 74 FOI Review 22.Google Scholar

³⁹ See for example: Ireland: Freedom of Information Act 1997, ss. 15 & 16; Australia: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), Part II; Canada: Access to Information Act R.S.C., 1985, s. 5; New Zealand: Official Information Act, 1982, Part III, U.S.: Freedom of Information Act, 1966, Section 552(a)(1).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Curtin argues however that since Article 1 of the Treaty of the European Union refers to open decision-making as being one of the objects and purposes of the Treaty, all institutions, organs and other bodies operating within the framework of activity of the European Union are subject to this principle. This, she suggests, implies that the internal access rules of such bodies should be interpreted in the light of the new Treaty based emphasis on open decision-making: Curtin, op. cit., above, n. 36, Pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Article 2(1).Google Scholar

⁴² Article 3(a).Google Scholar

⁴³ Article 4 provides as follows: “The institutions shall refuse access to documents where disclosure could significantly undermine the protection of:Google Scholar

(a) the public interest and in particular: public security, defence and international relations, relations between and/or with the Member States or Community or non-Community institutions, financial or economic interests, monetary stability, the stability of the Community's legal order, court proceedings, inspections, investigations and audits, infringement proceedings, including the preparatory stages thereof, the effective functioning of the institutions;Google Scholar

(b) privacy and the individual, and in particular: personal files, information, opinions and assessments given in confidence with a view to recruitments or appointments, an individual's personal details or document containing information such as medical secrets which, if disclosed, might constitute an infringement of privacy or facilitate such an infringement;Google Scholar

(c) commercial and industrial secrecy or the economic interests of a specific natural or legal person and in particular: business and commercial secrets, intellectual and industrial property, industrial, financial, banking and commercial information, including information relating to business relations or contracts, information on costs and tenders in connection with award procedures;Google Scholar

(d) confidentiality as requested by the third party that supplied the document or the information, or as required by the legislation of the member State.”Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Carvel v E.U. Council, op. cit., above, n. 33, at Para. 65.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ WWF v Commission, op. cit., above, n. 33; Interporc Im- und Export v Commission (Interporc I), op. cit., above, n. 33.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ COM(1998) 585.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 1, n. 3.Google Scholar