|
Helsinki Edition
October 1998
About Us
Index
News
Features
Focus: Europe
Columns
Letters to the Editor
Editorial
Links
Archive |
Press freedom - is it an issue
"I'd like a copy of case number C58-94, please!"
"Well I don't really know if that's OK, miss."
"Why not?"
"Well I don't know! OK, I'll see what I can do."
Another typical telephone conversation with service personnel in Brussels. Still there has been no sign of the copies.
What documents are institutions obliged to give out? Today there are no legal regulations. All institutions make their own rules. But when you ask for a certain document you must know the document number, which really reduces the possibility of finding the information quickly. A seeking service on the Internet is on its way though.
The issue of openness and access to public documents within the European Union is on the agenda at the moment. Important decisions with huge impact on the ordinary citizens of Europe are made in Brussels. Yet knowledge of what is going on in conference rooms and offices is limited. Member states with culture of openness want changes.
Secrecy has been the rule for a very long time but steps have been taken towards openness during the nineties. This is mainly a result of Finnish, Swedish, Danish and Dutch demands. With the Amsterdam Treaty they won a victory when a principle of openness was adopted.
"But the treaty only left us with even more questions", says Ulf Öberg, expert on EU openness at Stockholm University.
Specific regulations for the European Council, the Commission and the Court, should be formed within two years of the Amsterdam Treaty being put into operation next year.
At the moment the member states are negotiating in Brussels. Basically it is Sweden, Finland, Holland and Denmark on the one hand, versus Germany, France and Luxemburg on the other. Everyone wants to influence the Commission's final proposal.
The negotiations are formed by different national stands. Which country will influence the future common European one?
Sara Bengtsson and Ingrid Lindén
Access to public documents in Europe
Sweden:
A journalist wanting to see the representation bills of a Spanish mayor would probably receive nothing but laughter. In Sweden it is the right of every citizen. Many scandals concerning the abuse of power have been uncovered through the policy of openness. The feeling of being under scrutiny has probably led to more appropriate behaviour by those in power.
Sweden has a far-reaching principle of openness called 'offenlighetsprincipen'. First formulated in 1766 it has had a great impact on Swedish decision making and legal tradition for 232 years. The principle is stated in the Swedish constitution. Exceptions are stated in specific laws and the authorities need to point at a certain paragraph when denying a person public access.
The far-reaching principle doesn´t guarantee an easy job for the journalist. In the end it often comes down to having good relations with the officials. But knowing your legal rights helps, too.
Sara Bengtsson
The Netherlands:
The Dutch journalist, desperately looking for intriguing stories of public affairs, can always rely on the WOB if not given access to a document. WOB, Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur, is the Dutch law for openness. But there are limitations. Firstly it might take a long time before they hand over the documents, three or four months if you are unlucky. Secondly it is very expensive to go to court if you don´t agree with the authority's refusal. Only the big papers can afford it.
So a poor journalist trying to finish an article before the deadline might have a problem even though the essence of WOB is that members of the public should have access to documents that concern them.
One thing that is pretty unique though is that Dutch authorities send a copy of every incoming document from private persons or organizations to every newspaper. They receive it, provided it does not infringe on privacy rules, even if the newspapers haven´t asked for it.
Great Britain:
The British establishment is secretive to its cultural core. Huge amounts of information are kept under wraps for reasons supposedly in the 'national interest'. However, many secrets are there to maintain the priviliged positions of those with money and power. There are a lot of unnecessary secrets.
The Official Secrets Act states that anything defined as official must be kept a secret. The Prime Minister's bedroom falls into this catagory and details such as his colour scheme are forbidden knowledge.
The British Parliament is based on secrecy. After election new cabinet members swear a thirteenth century oath to keep secret all matters revealed to them.
The Labour Party, when in opposition, promised a Freedom Of Information Bill but we are still waiting.
Donna Sheffield
France
Any citizen of France has the legal right to get an official document from the authorities. This is done by getting in touch with an institution called CADA, Comission d'Accés aux Documents Administratives ( the Commission for access to official documents).
CADA finds the document from the right authority for you. This process might take a while, possibly months, depending on the authority, but the authority is obliged to give an explanation if they can't release the document.
In France people are very careful about handing out documents concerning private lives. Privacy is holy.
A Clinton scandal would never have been possible in France.
Other documents that are kept secret are those concerning the army, taxation, the police or the court.
Ingrid Lindén
Finland:
In Finland an official document is public. It is a right that is closely linked to freedom of speech. A citizen of a democratic state should have access to any official document. How else could a journalist control the decision makers?
There are, of course, documents that are unfinished and therefore withheld and some documents are secret because they contain information that might harm the state or strongly offend someone if published.
Parts of documents can also be made public even if the rest is kept secret. Then the secret parts are blocked out.
There are of course problems with our openness. Mainly that is lazy journalists who don't know their rights and authorities who are slow in obeying the law. But if a journalist has enough knowledge, patience and time he or she can be an efficient detective.
Ingrid Lindén
Germany:
In Germany journalists have the legal right to demand information from any offical authority. This guarantuee is not embodied in the constitution, but it is in common laws of the German Bundeslaender. Some Laender have enacted more far-reaching regulations on that matter than others.
Moreover, the right to demand information does not include the right to have access to any official document. The German authorities can decide whether and in what form they give information to journalists. If the authorities refuse to hand out the required information they have to put forward a specialized legal reason for their refusal. For example, they can base their denial on grounds of data protection, miltiary secrets, right to privacy or because it would intrude into pending official proceedings.
Journalists can try to take authorities to court if they feel that they have been rejected without valid reason. But of course this is a rather theoretical opportunity if journalists need the requested information quickly.
Torsten Holtz |
