Access to state-held information as a fundamental right under the European convention on human rights

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 114-126

  Hins, Wouter ^a   Voorhoof, Dirk ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247480157     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1574019607001149     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. David Banisar, 'Freedom of Information Around the World 2006: A Global Survey of Access to Government Records Laws', at .
2. See also Arbitragehof [Court of Arbitration] 25 March 1997, no. 17/97, A.A. 1997, 203 and J.T. 1997, 476.
3. Conseil d'État 29 April 2002, no. 228830 (Ullmann) and 13 Dec. 2002, no. 237203 (Gabriel X).
4. See also Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ [2001] L 145/43, 31-5.2001.
5. See furthermore Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 Jan. 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, OJ [2003] L 41/26, 14.02.2003
6. Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, OJ [2003] L 156/17, 25.06.2003
7. and Regulation (EC) 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 Sept. 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ [2006] L 264/13, 25.9.2006.
8. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice have elaborated a substantial case-law on the matter of access to EU-documents, as, e.g., CFI, Carrel v. Council, Case T-1 94/94 [1995] ECR 11-2765
9. CFI, World Wildlife Fund v. Commission, Case T-105/95 [1997] ECR II-313
10. CFI, Van der Wal v. Commission, Case T-83/96 [1998] ECR II-545
11. CFI, Svenska Journalistförbundet v. Council, Case T-174/95 [1998] ECR II-2289
12. CFI, Rothmans v. Commission, Case T-188/97 [1999] EGR II-2463
13. CFI, Hautala v. Council, Case T-14/98 [1999] ECR II-2489
14. CFI, Kuijer (I) v. Council, Case T-188/98 [2000] ECR II-1959
15. CFI, BAT v. Commission, Case T-111/00 [2001] ECR II-2997
16. CFI, Kuijer (II) v. Council, Case T-211/00 [2002] ECR II-7 Feb.;
17. CFI, Turco v. Council, Case T-84/03 [2003] ECR II-24 Nov.;
18. CFI, IFAW v. Commission, Case T-168/02 [2004] ECR II-30 Nov.;
19. CFI, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Commission, Case T-2/03 [2005] ECR II-13 April and
20. CFI, Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v. Commission, Case T-237-02, 14 Dec. 2006
21. ECJ, Van der Wal and Netherlands v. Commission, Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P [2000] ECR I-1
22. ECJ, Hautala v. Council, Case C-353/99 P [2001] ECR I-9565
23. and ECJ, Mattila v. Council and Commission, Case C-353/01 P, 22 Jan. 2004.
24. Art. I-9 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that the Union shall recognize the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which constitutes part II of the Treaty. The Treaty itself shall enter into force only after it has been adopted by each of the signatory countries.
25. Rec (2002) 2. The text of the Recommendation, including the Explanatory Memorandum, at .
26. The Explanatory Memorandum of the Recommendation also contains the provision that 'in order to allow easy access to official documents, the public authorities should provide the necessary consultation facilities, such as appropriate technical equipment, including that making use of new information and communication technology' (Art. X, Complementary measures).
27. See , and .
28. Preventing a (legal) person from lawfully receiving transmissions of broadcasting programs is considered as an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Art. 10 ECHR: ECtHR 22 May 1990, Autronic AG v. Switzerland, §47.
29. ECtHR 26 April 1979, Sunday Times (no 1) v. United Kingdom, §§ 64-66
30. and ECtHR 29 Oct. 1992, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, §55.
31. See also ECtHR 8 July 1986, Lingens v. Austria, §41
32. ECtHR 25 June 1992, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, §63
33. ECtHR 23 Sept. 1994, Jersild v. Denmark, §31
34. ECtHR 25 Aug. 1998, Hertel v. Switzerland, §§ 47-49
35. ECtHR 25 June 2002, Colombani v. France, §§ 55 and 64
36. ECtHR 13 Feb. 2003, Çetin and others v. Turkey, §64
37. and ECtHR 29 March 2005, Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine, §38.
38. ECtHR 18 July 2000, Sener v. Turkey, §46.
39. ECtHR 10 May 2001, Cyprus v. Turkey, §252.
40. ECtHR 9 Feb. 1998, Guerra and others v. Italy, §53.
41. Cf. ECtHR 26 March 1987, Leander v. Sweden, §74
42. ECtHR 7 July 1989, Gaskin v. United Kingdom, §52.
43. In a decision of 7 April 1997 (Grupo Interpres v. Spain), the European Commission of Human Rights applied Art. 10 in a case concerning a refusal to allow a company free access to court archives for the purpose of obtaining information about potential borrowers. According to the Commission, Spain had not violated Art. 10 ECHR, because 'l'étendue du droit à l'accès aux informations en cause est limité par le libellé du paragraphe 2 de l'article 10 de la Convention.' In other words, Art. 10 was considered applicable, but the interference with the right to receive information was justified in the circumstances of the present case. This finding of an interference is obviously at variance with the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights, considering Art. 10 not to be applicable in such cases: Decision European Commission of Human Rights 7 April 1997, 32849/96, Grupo Interpres S.A. v. Spain, D. R. 89, p. 150.
44. ECtHR 16 June 2004, Sîrbu and others v. Moldova, §18.
45. See also, the decision ECtHR 18 May 2004, 42841/02, Stephen Eccleston v. United Kingdom.
46. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Art. 8 is not the only article to impose positive obligations on the State to give access to state-held information to specific persons. The same is true for Art. 6 ECHR. Refusal by national tribunals to give access to certain legal documents can jeopardize the right to a fair hearing in a civil or criminal procedure: ECtHR 9 June 1998, McGinley and Egan v. United Kingdom, §§ 84-90.
47. Cf. ECtHR 2 Feb. 1984, Sutter v. Switzerland
48. ECtHR 28 June 1984, Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom
49. ECtHR 24 Nov. 1997, Werner v. Austria
50. ECtHR 24 April 2001, B. and P. v. United Kingdom
51. ECtHR 28 Sept. 2004, Loiseau v. France
52. and ECtHR 7 Feb. 2006, Donnadieu (no. 2) v. France.
53. European Commission of Human Rights 29 June 1996, Guerra v. Italy, §49.
54. ECtHR 19 Oct. 2005, Roche v. United Kingdom, §§ 172-173.
55. ECtHR 16 March 2000, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, §46.
56. ECtHR 29 Feb. 2000, Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, §38. Cf. ECtHR 28 June 2001, Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, §45 and ECtHR 6 May 2003, Appleby v. United Kingdom, §39.
57. A. Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2004) p. 108-109.
58. See, e.g., ECtHR 9 May 2003, Tepe v. Turkey, §181, referring to Recommendation No. R (99) 3 on the Harmonization of Medico-Legal Autopsy Rules (2 Feb. 1999)
59. and ECtHR 10 Nov. 2005, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, §136, referring to Recommendation No. R (98) 3 on Access to Higher Education (17 March 1998).
60. The latter judgment also referred to a recommendation by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Rec. No. 1353 (1998) on the Access of Minorities to Higher Education (27 Jan. 1998). See also ECtHR 9 Nov. 2006, Leempoel & SA Cine Revue v. Belgium, §78, referring to a resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Resolution 1165 (1998) on the right of privacy (24 June 1998).
61. In its case-law, the Court also regularly referred to other international instruments, treaties or EU-directives, as, e.g., in ECtHR Müller and Others v. Switzerland, 24 May 1988, §27
62. ECtHR Groppera Radio v. Switzerland, 28 March 1990, §61
63. ECtHR Autronic v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, §§ 62-63
64. ECtHR Jersild v. Denmark, 23 Sept. 1994, §§ 27 and 30-31
65. ECtHR Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, 20 May 1999, §65
66. ECtHR Nikula v. Finland, 21 March 2002, §§ 27-28
67. ECtHR A. v. UK, 17 Dec. 2002, §§ 33-36 and 81
68. ECtHR Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkey, 4 Dec. 2003, §§ 22-24 and 40
69. and ECtHR Murphy v. Ireland, 10 July 2003, §§ 32 en 81.
70. ECtHR 19 Oct. 2005, Roche v. United Kingdom, §§ 172-173.
71. ECtHR 11 June 2002, Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom, § 74.
72. Inter-American Court of Human Rights 19 Sept. 2006, Claude Reyes and others v. Chile, at .
73. It should be noted that, in contrast with Art. 10 ECHR and similar to Art. 19 ICCPR, the right guaranteed by Art. 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) also includes the freedom 'to seek' information and ideas, apart from the right to impart and receive information and ideas. Art. 13.1 ACHR states: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.' Art. 13.3. ACHR guarantees that 'the right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means (...) or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions', see .
74. This difference in wording between Art. 13 ACHR and Art. 10 ECHR however is not substantial. In recent case-law, the ECtHR has recognized that Art. 10 ECHR also includes the right to seek information. The Court, e.g., considered an interference with the right of a journalist to gather and to investigate information under the scope of Art. 10 ECtHR. The Court noted that the case did not concern the restraining of a publication as such or a conviction following a publication, but a preparatory step towards publication, namely a journalist's research and investigative activities. The Court emphasized that this phase also fell within its scrutiny and even called for the most scrupulous examination on account of the great danger represented by that sort of restriction on the freedom of expression. In the original wording of the Court, the protection of Art. 10 implies 'les activités de recherche et d'enquête d'un journaliste. A ce titre, il y a lieu de rappeler que non seulement les restrictions à la liberté de la presse visant la phase préalable à la publication tombent dans le champ du contrôle par la Cour, mais qu'elles présentent même des grands dangers et, dès lots, appellent de la part de la Cour l'examen le plus scrupuleux', ECtHR 25 April 2006, Dammann v. Switzerland §52, see .
75. A right to seek information is also recognized in the Declaration on the freedom of expression of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 29 April 1982, in which reference is made to the right of everyone 'regardless of frontiers, to express himself, to seek and receive information and ideas, whatever their source, as well as to impart them under the conditions set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights', .
76. In §77, the Court considered: 'la Corte estima que el artículo 13 de la Convención (..) protege el derecho que tiene toda persona a solicitar el acceso a la información bajo el control del Estado, con las salvedades permitidas bajo el régimen de restricciones de la Convención.'
77. §84-87. In §86 the Court considered: 'El acceso a la información bajo el control del Estado, que sea de interés público, puede permitir la participación en la gestión pública, a través del control social que se puede ejercer con dicho acceso.'
78. Decision ECtHR 10 July 2006, 19101/03, Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky v. Czech Republic. The name of the applicant can be translated as 'South Bohemian Mother Association'. Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky is established in České Budejovice. It is a non-political civil association whose mission it is to protect nature and the countryside. The association supports the enforcement of alternative methods of acquiring energy that are less of a burden to the environment and, above all, to limit the excessive consumption of energy by looking at ways of saving it. The association also attempts to act as a counter-balance to what it considers 'the one-sided nuclear lobby campaign enforcing the completion of the Temelín Nuclear Power Plant': .
79. Our translation. The original French version reads: Dans ses arrêts Guerra et autres c. Italie (arrêt du 19 février 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-I, §53), concernant l'absence d'informations de la population sur les risques encourus et sur les mesures à prendre en cas d'accident dans une usine chimique du voisinage, et Roche c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], no 32555/96, §172, CEDH 2005-...), portant sur l'absence de toute procédure d'accès à des informations qui auraient permis an requérant d'évaluer les risques pour sa santé pouvant résulter de sa participation à des tests militaires, la Cour a conclu que ladite liberté «ne saurait se comprendre comme imposant à un Etat, dans des circonstances telles que celles de l'espèce, des obligations positives de collecte et de diffusion, motu proprio, des informations .» La Cour observe également qu'il est difficile de déduire de la Convention un droit général d'accès aux données et documents de caractère administratif (voir, mutatis mutandis, Loiseau c. France (déc.), no 46809/99, CEDH 2003-XII (extraits)). En l'occurence, la requérante a demandé de consulter des documents administratifs qui étaient à la disposition des autorités et auxquels on pouvait accéder dans les conditions prévues par l'article 133 de la loi sur les constructions, contesté par la requérante. Dans ces conditions. la Cour admet que le rejet de ladite demande a constitué une ingérence au droit de la requérante de recevoir des informations' (voir, mutatis mutandis, Grupo Interpres S.A. c. Espagne, no. 32849/96, décision de la Commission du 7 avril 1997, Décisions et rapports 89, p. 150).
80. ECtHR 9 Feb. 1998, Guerra and others v. Italy, §53
81. and ECtHR 19 Oct. 2005, Roche v. United Kingdom, §§ 172-173.
82. See also ECtHR 16 June 2004, Sîrbu and others v. Moldova.
83. Decision ECtHR 18 May 2004, 42841/02, Stephen Eccleston v. United Kingdom.
84. See also ECtHR 26 March 1987, Leander v. Sweden and ECtHR 7 July 1989, Gaskin v. United Kingdom, §52.
85. Notice that the request by Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky did not concern personal data or personal records regarding the applicants themselves, like in some other cases where the Court considered, 'under such circumstances' Art. 10 not applicable: ECtHR 26 March 1987, Leander v. Sweden
86. ECtHR 7 July 1989, Gaskin v. United Kingdom
87. Decision ECtHR 18 May 2004, 42841/02, Stephen Eccleston v. United Kingdom and
88. ECtHR 19 Oct. 2005, Roche v. United Kingdom.
89. Our translation. The original French version reads: 'En effet, lorsque l'exercice du droit à recevoir des informations pent porter atteinte aux droits d'autrui, à la sûrété publique on à la santé, l'étendue du droit à l'accès aux informations en cause est limitée par le libellé du paragraphe 2 de l'article 10 de la Convention.'
90. ECtHR 16 Nov. 2004, Selistö v. Finland
91. ECtHR 16 Nov. 2004, Karhuvaara en Iltalehti v. Finland
92. ECtHR 29 March 2005, Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine
93. ECtHR 27 July 2005, Grinberg v. Russia
94. ECtHR 6 Sept. 2005, Salov v. Ukraine
95. ECtHR 31 Jan. 2006, Giniewski v. France
96. ECtHR 25 April 2006, Stoll v. Switzerland
97. ECtHR 25 April 2006, Dammann v. Switzerland
98. ECtHR 2 May 2006, Aydin Tatlav v. Turkey
99. ECtHR 4 May 2006, Alinak v. Turkey
100. ECtHR 6 June 2006, Erbakan v. Turkey
101. ECtHR 10 Aug. 2006, Lyaskho v. Ukraine
102. ECtHR 21 Sept. 2006, Monnat v. Switzerland
103. ECtHR 5 Oct. 2006, Zakharov v. Russia
104. ECtHR 7 Nov. 2006, Mamère v. France
105. ECtHR 14 Dec. 2006, Karman v. Russia
106. ECtHR 19 Dec. 2006, Radio Twist, SA v. Slovakia and
107. ECtHR 19 Dec. 2006, Dabrowski v. Poland.
108. Actually pending before the ECtHR is application No. 11721/04, in Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia. This case involves the alleged failure of an Armenian election authority to provide to the applicant organization information related to its decision-making processes, as well as data regarding the campaign contributions and expenses of certain political parties. The basic legal issue raised by the case is whether Art. 10 of the Convention grants individuals and other persons a general right of access to information held by public authorities.