Source: https://www.right2info.org/cases/database/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:04:49+00:00

Document:
This database includes summaries of a selection of judgments on the right to information issued by national and regional courts and the UN Human Rights Committee. We aim to include all relevant decisions of international and regional courts and other adjudicative bodies (the African Court and Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Inter-American Court and Commission on Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Committee). We also include judgments of national courts that establish the most important principles that might be of interest to litigators and activists even outside the country of the court's jurisdiction, focusing on cases issued by top appellate courts that advance protections of the right to information. You might also be interested in looking at websites of information commissioners and non-governmental organizations.
We rely on the help and expertise of readers and are very grateful to everyone who has already contributed. Please feel free to send us any corrections and missing links, as well as additional cases, case summaries and briefs. To help you navigate, this user guide walks you through the search functions of the database.
Bucur and Toma v. Romania Romania 2013 International / ECHR The criminal conviction of a public employee for revealing, in a high-profile press conference, irregularities in a government wiretapping intelligence program amounts to a violation of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
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.
Canada (Minister of Environment) v. Canada (Information Commissioner) Canada 2007 Appellate The Minister of Environment may not deny access to discussion papers on the safety and regulatory treatment of a fuel supplement under Section 21(1)(a) (advice and recommendations), (b) (consultations and deliberations) and Section 23 (solicitor-client privilege).
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.
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.
CIPPEC v. Federal Government, Department of Public Welfare, Executive Order 1172 of 2003, on action for protection Law 16.986 Argentina 2014 Supreme The government must legally provide access to information that is not otherwise prohibited from disclosure, and it is unreasonable to avoid disclosure when its negative consequences appear only abstract and conjectural.
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.
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).
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 would undermine the purpose of court proceedings. Under that presumption, access can be refused without an individualized assessment of the documents. However, 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.
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 must 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.
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.
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.
Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform v. Information Commissioner and Friends of the Earth United Kingdom 2008 First instance Information communicated between governmental officials and lobbyists is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 2000, as there exists a strong public interest in ensuring that bribery or corruption does not take place in such interactions and that individuals have an opportunity to put forth alternative positions to those being advanced by lobbyists.
Department for Education and Skills v. Information Commissioner and The Evening Standard United Kingdom 2007 First instance Section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 confers a qualified, not absolute, government policy formulation exemption. Such information is public if there is an overriding public interest in favour of disclosure.
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.
Derry City Council v. The Information Commissioner United Kingdom 2006 First instance A contract between a public authority and a third party contractor is not subject to exemptions primarily intended to protect third parties when the exemption arguments are not raised by the third party contractor itself but rather the public authority on behalf of the third party contractor.
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.
El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Macedonia 2012 International / ECHR Macedonia violated Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment when it unlawfully detained a German national, subjected him to physical abuse and interrogation, handed him over to the United States for continued mistreatment, and refused to carry out a proper investigation into the circumstances The inadequate character of the investigation in the case had an impact on the right to truth regarding the relevant circumstances of the case, rendering the case important not only for the applicant and his family, but also for other victims of similar crimes and the general public.
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.
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) applies in its entirety. When requesting minutes of a meeting between the Commission and a member state that include the names of the participants, the requester must establish an express and legitimate purpose or need for disclosure.
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.
Gilby v. Information Commissioner and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office United Kingdom 2008 First instance Disclosure of information relating to arms trade between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia could cause real and substantial prejudice to UK international relations, the harm of which outweighs any public interest in favour of disclosure. However, information relating specifically to the role of UK government officials in accepting bribes is subject to disclosure.
Gillberg v. Sweden Sweden 2012 International / ECHR A public employee is not protected under Article 10 of the Convention (right not to impart information) when it refuses to make research material available even though(i) such material belongs to a university, (ii) a university is ready to disclose it, and (iii) the employee does not owe any statutory duty of secrecy towards research participants. Finding otherwise would impinge on the right to receive information in the form of access to the public documents concerned.
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.
Gudiel Alvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala Guatemala 2012 International / IACHR The forced disappearances of 26 individuals that occurred from 1983-1985 during a period of internal armed conflict violated the right to life, personal integrity, personal liberty, and juridical personality of the victims. The state’s actions and subsequent failure to conduct a prompt, effective investigation into the forced disappearances also violated the right to truth and freedom of association of the victims’ family as well as the public at large.
Guja v. Moldova Moldova 2008 International / ECHR Severely sanctioning a civil servant for his public disclosure to the press of internal documents revealing possible governmental corruption constitutes a violation of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
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.
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 to assess whether access to them could validly be refused on the basis of the exceptions provided for in Regulation 1049/2001.
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.
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.
Internationaler Hilfsfonds v. Commission European Union 2010 International / EU Requiring an applicant to resubmit his request for information after the requested institution’s definitive refusal to provide access, is contrary to the objective of the two-stage process established by Regulation No 1049/2001, namely - to guarantee swift and straightforward processing of applications for access to documents.
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 public authorities concerning persons or entities suspected of terrorism and falling 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.
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 Hungarian ministry’s reluctance to comply with the courts’ rulings and allow unrestricted access to documents sought for historical research purposes constitutes a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
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.
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.
Ministry of Defense v. Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement Israel 2011 Supreme The Ministry of Defense improperly refused to disclose a document relating to the provision of food to the Gaza strip. While the document might have contained information relating to internal deliberations, the ministry failed to provide concrete reasons why the information was sensitive and failed to consider the possibility of partial disclosure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Petitioner v. Centro de Investigacion y Seguridad Nacional (Centre of Investigation and National Security) Mexico 2008 Appellate The Centre of Investigation and National Security must disclose public information of 12 contracts for the provision of equipment entered with SOGAMS S.A. de C.V, outlining public information not related to the equipment or materials themselves, such as term, price and date, and disclosing the names of non-intelligence personnel. The Centre of Investigation and National Security can legally withhold information on the elements purchased, their characteristics and the intelligence personnel involved in such contracting since this constitutes reserved information.
Petitioner v. Procuraduria General de la Republica (Public Prosecutor) Mexico 2004 Appellate The public prosecutor must release information on the internal and preliminary investigations regarding probable crimes of genocide committed by government forces against participants in student demonstrations, notwithstanding assertions by the public prosecutor that the information does not exist, as it should be present in the government archives.
Petitioner v. Procuraduria General de la Republica (Public Prosecutor) Mexico 2006 Appellate The public prosecutor must release a copy of the report handed by the Special Prosecutor for Political Movements of the Past to President Vicente Fox on April 15, 2006, absent proof of how disclosure would harm ongoing investigations.
Petitioner v. Procuraduria General de la Republica (Public Prosecutor) Mexico 2007 Appellate The public prosecutor must properly disclose to Petitioner information on the number and status of preliminary investigations formerly conducted by the Special Prosecutor for Social & Political Movements of the Past.
Family of Rosenda Radilla v. Public Prosecutor Mexico 2009 Appellate The public prosecutor must release a preliminary investigation related to the forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco under the final provision of Article 14 of the RTI Law, which mandates disclosure of otherwise reserved documents when they relate to grave violations of fundamental rights and crimes against humanity.
Petitioner v. Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional (Secretary of National Defense) Mexico 2007 Appellate The Secretariat of National Defence must release the name of the public officials who purchased body armour and the quantities provided to other agencies since this is public information under Article 7 of the RTI Law. Information on the security level of such armour is classified under Article 13(I) as it compromises national/public security and national defence, and – to the extent it is not already publicly available – should be kept confidential.
Petitioner v. Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional (Secretary of National Defense) Mexico 2004 Appellate The Secretariat of National Defence must release the name and ranks of military personnel detained in a military prison camp during the 1970s, since its disclosure does not affect the life, security or health of former detainees and, in the case of military personnel, it is related to activities of an inherently public nature; and it must provide information on whether civilians were also interned there. The fact that civilian detention in a military base was illegal is insufficient to justify the non-existence of documents, and given existing reports, if SND cannot find such information, it must furnish proof that no such information exists.
Petitioner v. Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional (Secretary of National Defense) Mexico 2005 Supreme The Secretariat of National Defence must elaborate a public version of the documents sought by Petitioner which contain a description of the country’s overall defence strategy – public information – but which leaves out strategic and logistical data that, if disclosed, would naturally affect military operations and endanger national security.
Petitioner v. Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional (Secretary of National Defense) Mexico 2004 Appellate The Secretariat of National Defence must fully disclose the conciliation files of the National Commission of Human Rights corresponding to proceedings where conciliation was offered to personnel of the Secretariat of National Defence and which have already been resolved. For those cases that have not been resolved, the Secretariat of National Defence must disclose the files but redact information that would allow an identification of the individuals engaged in such proceedings, to protect both their identities and the integrity of the process.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Sophie In’t Veld v. European Commission European Union 2013 International / EU A certain level of discretion is justified when it comes to disclosure of information regarding the negotiation of international agreements such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), so as 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.
South Lanarkshire Council v. Scottish Information Commissioner United Kingdom 2013 Supreme Decision of the Scottish Information Commissioner to request disclosure of information regarding pay scales of Council employees is in conformity with Data Protection Act. It is necessary and proportional for the legitimate aim of the applicant.
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.
Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission European Union 2013 International / EU The European Commission’s refusal to grant access to documentation containing information about the pesticide glyphosate cannot be justified by reference to the commercial confidentiality or the intellectual property rights of a natural or legal person.
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 the exception in Regulation 1049/2001 upon which the institution relies.. The requirements for protecting the decision-making process are less acute when the process is closed, rather than ongoing.
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.
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.
Turek v. Slovakia Slovakia 2006 International / ECHR Refusal of the national authorities to give the applicant access to materials classified as top secret by the former regime violated the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, given that he needed the materials to contest the state’s determination that he had collaborated with State Security agents.
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.
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.
Uzoegwu F.O.C. Esq v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Attorney-General of the Federation Nigeria 2012 First instance The salaries of high-level officials at the Central Bank of Nigeria are not personal information and should be disclosed under the FOI Act.
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”.
Videocable Rivera S.A. and Others v. Communications Services Regulatory Unit Uruguay 2013 Supreme Under the Law on Right of Access to Public Information (ATI law), disclosure by the Communications Services Regulatory Unit of the number of subscribers to a television company’s services does not violate the constitutional right to privacy.
Vilnes and others v. Norway Norway 2014 International / ECHR A State’s failure to ensure access to essential information regarding risks associated with use of decompression tables to divers constituted violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.
Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia Serbia 2013 International / ECHR The freedom to receive information embraces a general right of access to information. Article 10 of the Convention includes the right of access to data held by an intelligence agency. A public body cannot evade requests for information by simply declaring that it does not hold the information.
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.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.