Source: https://www.access-info.org/decision-making-transparency/jurisprudence
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:20:42+00:00

Document:
In order to help activists and civil society to push for greater transparency, and secure positive changes in transparency practices, this webpage collects and displays key jurisprudence relating to the disclosure of documents that are useful in helping to open up decision-making processes.
Here you will find a series of cases from all across Europe which we hope will be useful in order to map what, where and why we can access key pieces of public information related to decision-making.
Check out the cases and see what arguments can help you access decision-making information!
The applicant requested access to the transcript of a Government meeting where a list of candidates for the position of Slovenian EU Commissioner was discussed and decided upon.
The Government’s argument for the refusal was that the release of the transcript would cause irreparable harm to the internal operations of the body (Article 6(1)(11) of Slovenia’s access to information law), as well as that the transcript was classified as INTERNAL (Article 6(1)(1) of Slovenia’s access to information law).
The applicant demanded that the Government declassify the requested transcript as the information already was in the public domain and because vital interests of the country that need to be safeguarded under the Classified Information Act cannot be affected by the release of the information sought. Should the public be informed about the discussions on the candidates for the position of the EU Commissioner, this would certainly not harm the interests of the country.
The Commissioner thus ordered the disclosure of the transcript (annulling the Body’s decision).
The body failed to produce a proper “assessment of the possible adverse effects” of the document being released to unauthorised persons.
The examined assessment did not specify any adverse effects in concreto.
The assessment was produced months after its creation and after the Body received the applicant’s request (instead of before the document was created or, in urgent cases, in maximum three days after its creation).
The Body failed to prove that the release of the transcript would harm the security of the country or its political or economic interests, which is the requirement laid down in the Classified Information Act.
The Commissioner rejected the Government’s argument that politicians would be under heightened public pressure should the transcripts be released. The Commissioner noted that it is in the nature of their function to be under some pressure of the public, whose opinion might be different than theirs.
The Commissioner disagreed with the Body that the Ministers would limit their thought process and would stay away from expressing critical remarks, because they would expect their opinions would become public. Since the Commissioner and the Administrative Court ordered the release of similar transcripts in the past, the experience shows that the discussion was not limited and the Ministers remained critical.
The Commissioner emphasised that the burden of proving that the release of the document would harm the “internal operations” of the Body, lies on the said Body. However, the Government did not put forward any specific arguments as to the harm caused by releasing this specific information. It was more concerned with the fact that the release would cause “an unwanted and dangerous precedent.” This cannot be sustained as a valid argument as the threat of harm needs to be specific and not abstract.
The release of the transcript would thus not seriously harm critical, innovative and effective functioning of the Body. On the contrary, the publicity of the information sought would enable citizens to exercise control over the functioning of public administration and help in preventing bad administration, abuse of power and corruption.
A journalist requested the Minutes of the Ministry’s Working Body on Technical Coordination of Foreign Policy Activities. He also requested the Programme of anticipated foreign visits of the President of the Republic, the President of the Parliament, the Prime Minister, the President of the National Council, the ministers and heads of the Government services for the year 2007. The reason for the request was a perceived lack of coordination between the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister regarding their respective international visits and meetings with foreign dignitaries.
The Ministry rejected the request.
Programme of trips/vists: the Ministry invoked the exception of classified data (Article 6(1)(1)). It reasoned that it would be inappropriate to release the Programme, as foreign states could find out from the media about a planned visit and it would also be inappropriate that public would know about the visits public before all arrangements are concluded and confirmed by both sides. This could have important consequences for the economic and political relationships between the states.
Minutes of the meeting: the Ministry relied on the exception of “internal operations” (Article 6(1)(11)). The Ministry emphasised that the Minutes contains value judgments of those present at the meeting, which could harm the relations between Slovenia and the states involved.
The requester’s appeal was denied based on the exception of protection of “internal operations” of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Article 6(1)(11) of APIA).
Not properly classified: The Commissioner first established that the information had not been properly classified, as it did not follow the provisions of the Classified Information Act. The Body failed to produce an “assessment of the possible adverse effects,” which is a formal requirement laid down in the Classified Information Act. However, other exceptions could apply.
Internal operations exception: The Commissioner noted that the exception of “internal operations” (Article 6(1)(11) of APIA) protects internal correspondence and other material that needs to be protected in order to safeguard the effective “internal deliberative process” of a public sector body. The Commissioner recognised the sensitive nature of the Programme and the Minutes; in order to keep good foreign relations, negotiations and coordination in political, economic, educational, cultural, scientific and other areas of foreign relations need to be conducted with caution and reasonably. This was especially important in the light of the then impeding Slovenian presidency of the Council of the EU (in 2008).
The Commissioner agreed with the Body that releasing the Programme would significantly affect economic and political foreign relations and would cause serious harm in the area of international relations and consequently to the functioning of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Commissioner emphasised that this is all the more true because the plans of the visits had not yet been finalised and the visits had not yet occurred.
Equally, the Commissioner upheld the Body’s decision to deny access to the requested Minutes. Namely, they include value judgments of officials, who expressed their opinions on how rational and important different foreign visits are and who would be best placed to represent the Republic at such meetings. The Commissioner agreed that releasing the Minutes could cause serious and irreparable harm to international relations and foreign policy of the Republic of Slovenia and consequently to the internal functioning of the Ministry.
The applicant requested access to minutes and resolutions adopted by the College of the Minister of Education, Science and Sport and several of its Directorates in the period from 1 January 2012 to 1 September 2014.
The Ministry rejected the application, claiming that the requested documents in large part do not exist. In the part where they do exist (minutes and resolutions of the “Office for Youth”, an office under the Ministry), the Body invoked the exception of protection of “internal operations” (Article 6(1)(9)).
The applicant did not explain the arguments for disclosure or they are not noted down in the Commissioner’s decision.
The Commissioner upheld the decision of the Ministry that it did not hold the information requested.
The Commissioner found that whilst Decree on Administrative Operations requires that materials for official sessions should include the minutes of previous session, there is no obligation to record and keep minutes of College of Minister meetings. This is because the meetings of the College cannot be considered as a “session” in the meaning of the Decree. This is mainly because such meetings are aimed at internal organisation and functioning of the body and have no external effect; they are not formalised in a way that would allow drawing an analogy with what is usually understood under the term “session” (such as Government session, session of working bodies, and session of a city council).
Thus, the Commissioner found no reasons to doubt the Body’s explanations and the applicant did not put forward any arguments to the contrary.
On the other hand, the Commissioner partially annulled the Body’s decision and ordered it’s re-examination in part that relates to the minutes of meetings of the Office for Youth. The Commissioner found that the body applied the exemption of protection of “internal operations” in abstract terms rather than specifically in this case. While it is true that the minutes are created to support internal operations of the body, the Ministry failed to apply the harm test and did not explain how releasing the minutes would harm the internal operations and internal decision-making of the body. The Commissioner emphasised that the harm test is strict and that the harm suffered should seriously impede the process of internal operations of the body. As the body did not explain what kind of harm would have occurred, the Commissioner demanded that it re-examines the request and decides upon it anew.
An NGO wanted to obtain full minutes of the Council of Ministers (CoM) session during which the EU Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union was discussed.
The Prime Minister refused to disclose such information as according to the 1996 Act on the Council of Ministers the minutes are protected from dissemination.
The text of the provision was formulated in a clear and unambiguous manner. Each Council of Ministers session takes place behind closed doors. This means that only duly authorised persons can participate. The proceedings of CoM sessions shall not be disclosed to the public.
An NGO wanted to obtain full minutes of a meeting held by the Standing Committee of the Council of Ministers (which prepares final drafts before a Council of Ministers session) concerning the discussion on the draft report on financial market supervision.
The Prime Minister informed that full minutes in the form of a protocol constitute an internal working document and do not fall under the FOI Act.
“The fundamental fact to be established in this case is whether the information requested by the Association in the form of records (minutes) of the Standing Committee meeting of March 13, 2014 referred to in § 10 section 1 of Order No. 86 of the Prime Minister of November 28, 2013 on the Standing Committee of the Council of Ministers constitutes public information within the meaning of the Act on Access to Public Information.
In administrative courts’ judicial decisions it is emphasised that internal documents are not part of public information. Although they serve as a means to implement a certain public task, they do not set the direction of a given body’s actions concerning any particular issue. Internal documents are used to exchange information, collect indispensable materials, agree on the discussed issues and adopt a common stance. They may differ in form but are never binding as to the way a given issue should be addressed, and are therefore not considered to be a representation of the body’s position on any issue, hence they are not public information.
According to the Court, the records (minutes) of March 13, 2014 CoM Standing Committee session should be interpreted as internal documents within the meaning described above.
The Standing Committee is an auxiliary body of the Council of Ministers and of the Prime Minister.
The Standing Committee’s tasks include initiating, preparing and agreeing on solutions or positions adopted by the Council of Ministers or by the Prime Minister on matters lying within the scope of their respective competences, as well as considering other issues entrusted to it by the CoM or the PM.
Full records of Standing Committee sessions are prepared under the supervision of the Committee’s Secretary, to be referred to as the “minutes of the meeting”, together with a memorandum of understanding (“memorandum of understanding” of the CoM Standing Committee). The minutes of the meeting are an internal working document that is used to elaborate the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding contains a full list of decisions made during the Standing Committee session together with other positions submitted to be included in the text. The memorandum is signed by the Chair of the Committee and by the Secretary. In the case of absence of the Chair, the Deputy Chair signs the document.
In the light of the above, the Court has no doubt as to the fact that the minutes of the meeting organised by the Standing Committee do not constitute public information within the meaning of the Act on Access to Public Information as they are devoid of official character. The meetings of the Standing Committee are only a step toward the establishment of an official position or a set of decisions by the Council of Ministers or the Prime Minister.
A citizen requested for access to the minutes of meetings (in the form of recordings) held between the government and Catholic Church representatives concerning consultations on various draft laws. The Minister of Administration and Digitization, who was the host of the meeting, denied access claiming that the recordings constitute a working, internal document.
Friends of the Earth asked for what meetings and correspondence there have been between Ministers and/or senior civil servants and employees from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) one of whose main aims is to lobby government on behalf of its members. On 26 July 2005 the DTI provided some information but refused to supply other information held on the basis it was exempt under Sections 35 (policy formulation), but also 36 (prejudice to the conduct of public affairs) and 41 (confidential information) and Section 40 (Personal Data) of the UK FOI Act.
This is a particularly important case in the history of the UK FOI Act due to its relatively early arrival at the Tribunal level; it is one of the first cases to discuss lobbying and the effects of lobbying in detail and the depth to which the balancing of the public interest test was considered.
Due to the wide ranging nature of section 35, being interpreted broadly as anything that ‘relates to’ policy, and the Tribunal agreeing with the DTI’s reliance on the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA)’s guidance which states “a suggestion or advice received from a third party in the course of policy development will be covered by the exemption”, the case was not based on whether or not the information was subject to section 35 but on the balancing of the public interest test.
The DTI argued that there is likely to be a deterrent effect on third parties in providing input into the policy making process if there was a danger of the discussions being disclosed and that Ministers and officials need to be allowed to weigh up advice and options without the distortion that premature disclosure might create by closing off options that might otherwise be viable (what has now become known as the ‘safe space’ argument). They also need to have regard to the effect of policy announcements on markets and the damaging effect that speculation about government intervention or disclosure of partially formed policies can have on confidence not only in government but also in the private sector. The DTI advises that the CBI is a vital source of advice to it on the potential and actual impact of DTI policies on the business community. In particular the DTI asserts that the CBI also has a deep and sophisticated understanding of the complexities of wider government policies in the UK and Europe – consequently, it is equipped to provide sound advice to inform the policy making process.
Whilst the DTI did recognise that there is a public interest in the transparency of engagement with lobbying bodies they maintained that this interest is weaker than the public interest in maintaining the exemption for the reasons already provided above.
FOtE argue that there will not be a deterrent effect on discussions between the government as CBI officials need to lobby the government as it is in its interest to do so.
Due to the complexity of the case, the number of exemptions and having to apply the public interest argument “in all the circumstances of the case”, the Tribunal largely upheld the Decision Notice, but have also upheld the appeal in part.
The Tribunal concluded that, there was a strong public interest in understanding how lobbyists, particularly those given privileged access, are attempting to influence government so that other supporting or counterbalancing views can be put to government to help ministers and civil servants make best policy. Also there is a strong public interest in ensuring that there is not any impropriety. The Commissioner argued that there is a strong public interest in disclosure because it leads to greater transparency, accountability, public debate, better public understanding of public authorities’ decisions and informed and meaningful participation by the public in the democratic process.
On 21 December 2009 the complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health for information related to plain packaging on tobacco products. The request was refused under section 35(1)(a), information which relates to the formulation or development of government policy. The public authority concluded that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
The DoH argued that the public interest favours applying the exemption in respect of the withheld information because of the importance of ensuring good relations with third party stakeholders involved in the policy process. The withheld information relates to a seminar, or ‘Roundtable discussion’ which was convened by one of the public authority’s stakeholders to consider the evidence on plain packaging at which a number of representatives of other governments were present. The public authority has explained that the seminar took place under ‘Chatham House’ Rule – ‘a widely recognised, reputable way in which Government and other worldwide organisations operate policy discussions in that they provide both anonymity to speakers and encourage openness and the sharing of information’. They argued that the stakeholder concerned would not have agreed to convene the seminar and the other participants would not have agreed to take part if they thought that there was any possibility that the information would have been disclosed. Therefore it argued that disclosure would have damaged relations with the stakeholders concerned and said that in its view there was a strong public interest in protecting the basis of trust which is essential for the positive working relationship between the public authority and the third parties concerned. The public authority has also referred to the public interest in having a safe space within the policy making process. It argues that there is a public interest in ensuring that the possibility of public exposure does not deter from full, candid and proper deliberation of policy formulation, including the exploration of all policy options.
The complainant argued that there is strong public interest in transparency where third parties have or appear to have privileged access to government and where they are able to influence or directly influence the formulation or development of government policy. The complainant highlighted section 35(4) of the Act which requires public authorities when balancing the public interest to have regard to the particular public interest in the disclosure of factual information which has, or is intended to be used to provide an informed background to decision taking. The complainant also suggested that when explaining its reasons for withholding the information the public authority had failed to identify what specific harm would result from disclosure but had instead relied on general arguments as to why the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption.
Mindful of the presumption in favour of disclosure the Commissioner decided that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Exception relating to the formulation or development of government policy: The Commissioner considered that the term ‘relates to’ can safely be given a broad interpretation. The Commissioner took the view that the ‘formulation’ of government policy comprises the early stages of the policy process – where options are generated and sorted, risks are identified, consultation occurs and recommendations or submissions are put to a Minister. ‘Development’ may go beyond this stage to the processes involved in improving or altering already existing policy such as piloting, monitoring, reviewing, analysing or recording the effects of existing policy.
In this case the public authority confirmed that the withheld information relates to the evidence used to inform the possible introduction of plain packaging in the wider context of the government’s overall tobacco strategy. The Commissioner was satisfied that the work carried out by the public authority in relation to plain packaging amounted to government policy within the meaning of section 35(1)(a).
Applying the public interest test: The Commissioner considered that there is a public interest in aiding public understanding on issues being considered by the government in its tobacco control strategy.
In light of the public interest arguments from both sides the Commissioner’s view was that any public interest in having a safe space in the public authority’s dealings with third parties is at the very least counterbalanced by the public interest in increasing public participation in the debate on the issues being discussed.
The Commissioner accepts that there is a public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption and that there are risks that disclosure could make the public authority’s relationships with certain stakeholders more difficult. However, the Commissioner felt that this is outweighed by the public interest in having a fully informed and open debate where widespread health issues are concerned, and in understanding the extent of the influence of lobby groups in formulating government policy.
Dominic Hayes was and is the education correspondent of the Evening Standard newspaper. He submitted a request for information to the Department for Education and Skills (DFES) concerning the minutes of senior management meetings around a supposed funding crisis in schools. The information was denied subject to exemption 35(1) Policy Formulation.
The ICO ordered disclosure after considering the strength of the public interest in disclosure of the documents but the DFES appealed to the tribunal.
Damage to relations between civil servants and ministers and to the role of civil servants in the formation of policy.
The ICO and Evening Standard’s key arguments were that there is no intrinsic damage in the disclosure of information which enjoys a qualified exemption. That there is, in general, a public interest in examining the workings of central government, not least to ensure that the public is able to make a constructive contribution to important policy debates and that specifically in this case the amount and distribution of funding of schools is an issue of great public importance and always attracts keen and legitimate interest. Also importantly that sections 35(2) and 19(3)(b) of the UK FOI Act both indicate that information is to be regarded as less sensitive, hence more readily disclosable, once a policy has been formulated. And that the incremental or cumulative impact of a series of disclosures – the series of grave adverse effects above – should be disregarded, given the words “in all the circumstances of the case” in section 2(2)(b).
The Tribunal upheld the Information Commissioner`s decision, to disclose the information as the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in withholding the information.
The Tribunal concluded that they agreed that the immediate factual background to policy discussions is itself information caught by section 35(1)(a) and that a broad approach should be adopted. If the meeting or discussion of a particular topic within it, was, as a whole, concerned with section 35(1)(a) activities, then everything that was said and done is covered.
Concerning the public interest the Tribunal noted there is force in the point that there is a general public interest in transparency and a better understanding of how the government tackles important policy problems and that the “funding crisis” was of great public concern is clearly a factor. There is, furthermore, a legitimate interest in seeing how the emerging problem was tackled between March and July, 2003. They considered that the information in issue is likely to prove of major importance to any public debate on the issue but it may have some.
In light of the application of the public interest test, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner`s decision, to disclose the information as the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in withholding the information.
This case is connected with the state described in the case with ref. no. II SAB/Wa 295/11.
The NGO asked the Prime Minister to deliver information on who decided to perform informal consultations via a mailing list with selected NGOs. The Prime Minister responded that there was no information as such a decision was not taken.
The Supervisory Council argued that the recorded conversations in the minutes fall under Section 6(1)(6) of the Act on Openness as they were kept for the preparation of a matter or for the internal use of the authority.
The Supervisory Council had also invoked Section 5(4) of the Act on Openness. The argument used was that the authority had archived the conversations only for internal purposes and they had no duty to archive the documents. Moreover, the authority argued that it had pursuant to Section 5(4) ordered that access to the information can only be granted by permission of the authority. The authority also argued that to ensure that opinions can be formed freely, it is important that access to the conversations is limited.
The applicant argued in the Supreme Administrative Court that the Supervisory Council had not been credible in explaining that the conversations had been recorded only for preparation of the matter or for internal purposes.
As a counterargument for the Supervisory Council’s argument that the records had only been kept to clarify the background for the decision taken, the applicant argued that it is exactly the reason why the public has the right to know in accordance with the Act on Openness.
The applicant also argued that the fact that some of the conversations had been recorded in the actual minutes of the decisions shows that the conversations are an integral part of the decisions.
Moreover, the applicant argued that it is impossible to understand some of the decisions taken or their backgrounds without knowing the contents of the conversations and this inhibits the materialization of the purpose of the Act on Openness.
The Supreme Administrative Court found that the minutes, including records of conversations, of the Supervisory Council were documents prepared by the authority. When the conversations had been recorded in writing, scrutinized and signed in an appropriate manner, they were not deemed to be internal documents or documents prepared for the preparation of a matter.
The Court ruled in favour of the requester, rejecting the authorities reasoning based on sections 5(4) and 6(1)(6) regarding the fact that the documents had been prepared for internal use or preparation of a matter. The court found that the authority could not justify its refusal on these grounds and give information only on the permission of the Supervisory Council, and therefore asked the authority to reconsider its decision.
There were several exceptions invoked by the Ministry of Defense (Sections 24(1)(2), 24(1)(7)-24(1)(10)). In general, these exceptions relate to protection for international relations, security arrangements, public safety and military matters. The government had decided to prolong the period for secrecy of these documents in 1983 by 15 years. The Ministry also argued that even though the documents are fairly old, they contain information that is still pertinent with regard to defense.
As a second point, the Ministry of Defense argued that parts of the information can be deemed to be drafted for internal purposes according to Section 5(4) of the Act on Openness. The Ministry also argued that it is not possible to disclose parts of the documents without disclosing parts that come under the secrecy obligations. Moreover, the Ministry argued with reference to Section 16(1) of the Act on Openness that due to the big amount of documents (minutes from almost 100 meetings), partial disclosure is not possible without causing unreasonable inconvenience to the authority.
The applicant argued that the Ministry has not given reasons for the non-disclosure nor helped him to identify the specific documents he is interested in. The applicant also argued that the information is so old that it can be construed to be harmless as the political situation has changed so dramatically in over twenty years.
The applicant also claimed that Section 16(1) governs only the modes of access not the actual question of disclosure. The Ministry has not given reasons for why the disclosure would cause unreasonable inconvenience as the likely amount of documents in total is around 150-225.
The applicant also referred to Section 18 of the Act on Openness on good practice of information management and to the fact that the Ministry should have records based on which it is easy to locate the information requested.
The court found that the secrecy obligation under Section 24(1)(10) applies to the documents requested and it is not obvious that disclosure will not violate or compromise the interests of defense. Nevertheless, the court found that not all parts of the documents come under the secrecy obligations.
Moreover, the Court found that the decision of the Ministry does not give reasons as to how the Ministry has evaluated the risk provided in the secrecy obligations. The Ministry has not explained how the documents could be regarded to be prepared for internal preparation, especially in light of the fact that there is an obligation stemming from a specific decree to keep minutes of the meetings of the Defense Council.
The Court found that it cannot be construed that the Ministry would have evaluated the documents document-by-document and taking into account Section 10 of the Act on Openness that provides for partial access of secret documents. Nor has the Ministry evaluated partial access. The Court also found that the amount of documents cannot be deemed to be so big that it would cause unreasonable inconvenience to the authority.
The decision was returned to the authority for revision.
The requester wrote to the Department of Justice requesting records relating to a particular investigation concerning herself and other family members, including minutes of meetings between herself and Department officials and the representative body for lawyers, and the police force. The Department decided to release 12 records and withhold 10, citing various exemptions under the FOI Act 1997-2003, including the deliberative process exemption.
Records 1, 2 and 3 consisted of a minute drafted by the Department of Justice of a meeting between the requester and her representatives and officials of the Department, attached to covering letters from the Secretary General of the Department to the Director General of the Law Society of Ireland, to the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána (the Irish police force), and to the Director of Public Prosecutions (the Irish public prosecutor) respectively on the attached minute of the meeting.
The Department argued against release of the records as it claimed it would undermine the confidentiality of communications between senior officials of the Department and of other bodies and that this would negatively impact upon the deliberative process.
The Commissioner did not accept that there can be a blanket exemption on meetings held between Departmental officials, elected representatives and the people they represent. She ruled that each case must be judged on its merits.
Nor did the Commissioner accept that officials, or members of the police force or lawyers’ representative group would be inhibited from carrying out their duties by release of the records involved in this case. The Commissioner also found that the Department had not provided any evidence to justify its contention that this would be the outcome of release of the records.
The Commissioner considered the public interest factors in favour of release, including: “the public interest in individuals being able to exercise their rights under the FOI Act to the fullest extent” and “the public interest in members of the public knowing how a public body performs its functions and being able to form an opinion as to whether those functions are being properly discharged”.
An NGO wanted to obtain information concerning the exchange of e-mails between selected public officials and between public officials and other NGOs that took part in the non-formal consultation process on the proposal to amend the FOI act (to include some more exemptions). The Prime Minister claimed that all formal documents are on his website and silently denied access to the information.
This is supported by the administration digitization authority. It is beyond doubt that projects, evaluations and opinions concerning specific provisions of the Act on Access to Public Information and some other legal acts were exchanged by electronic means. Such information exchange is not limited to working documents, preparatory materials or internal data, contrary to the authority’s statement.
“Written correspondence, including e-mails, exchanged between a public official and his/her colleagues does not constitute public information even if it does concern that person’s public tasks to some extent. Such correspondence is not official by any means, even if it contains proposals concerning the ways in which a given public issue should be addressed, because it is within the scope of liberty necessary for taking adequate decisions after all opinions concerning different solutions are taken into account.
The public authority however redacted information from the disclosed emails on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2), 35(1)(a) and 41(1)(a). The public authority submitted that the withheld information in the email chains ‘relates to the formulation of government policy in the area of referral fees, insofar as it relates to provisions in Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which is currently before Parliament’.
In favour of the exemption, the public authority explained that the withheld information forms part of a dialogue between the government and stakeholders in the insurance industry in relation to referral fees and civil litigation funding and costs reform. The dialogue was taking place to allow officials to develop policy proposals with informed stakeholders, including representatives of both claimants and defendants so that the government could understand the impact of possible policy changes under consideration. The public authority strongly submitted that these discussions needed to take place out of the public eye. It argued that there was a significant public interest in the value of government being able to test ideas with informed third parties out of the public eye, and knowing what the reaction of particular groups of stakeholders might be if particular policy lines/negotiating positions were to be taken. The public authority was keen to stress that the final decisions on referral fees and civil litigation funding and costs had not been made. It strongly submitted that disclosure would leave officials in the position of having to defend everything that was raised during deliberations and this, it argued, would hinder the development of actual and effective policy proposals. The public authority also stressed that alternative views were sought by officials to counterbalance those expressed by the insurance industry stakeholders consulted. It argued that this approach had safeguarded government policy from being unduly influenced by lobbyists and therefore lessened the public interest test at the time of the request to scrutinise the submissions made by the insurance industry.
The public authority further argued that disclosure would result in civil servants being less inclined to consult with stakeholders on the risks and implications of policy options, for fear of being accused, or misrepresented, as subject to undue influence from the insurance industry. As a consequence, their ability to assess risks and implications would be diminished. The public authority concluded that there was a strong public interest in officials having safe space, free from lurid headlines to develop and test policy options on civil justice effectively, engaging relevant stakeholders where necessary before they are publicly presented.
The Complainant submitted that too much weight had been given to the space needed for consultation and exploration of policy options in the circumstances because lobbyists will not be easily deterred from pushing for their agenda. The complainant also submitted that no consideration had been given to the promotion of accountability and transparency in the circumstances. He argued that placing an obligation on officials to provide reasoned explanations for decisions made will improve the quality of decisions and administration.
The Commissioner found that in all the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption at section 35(1)(a) outweighed the public interest in disclosing the withheld information.
Concerning section 35(1)(a) particularly, the Commissioner found that the withheld information was part of the engagement process between the government and key stakeholders in connection with proposed reforms to legal aid, particularly in relation to civil litigation funding and costs. The Commissioner therefore found that the withheld information relates to the formulation of government policy in connection with the cost of civil litigation in England and Wales and that the email chains fell within section 35(1)(a) of the Act.
The Commissioner agreed it is unlikely that disclosure would have deterred lobbyists on both sides of the argument from pursuing their interests. He accepts that there was a strong public interest in disclosing the exchanges given the latter’s role in shaping how government policy was being formulated. There was therefore a strong public interest in revealing the influence external organisations were having on the proposed reforms.
The Commissioner accepted that whilst the policy is still in the process of being turned into legislation the policy development is still ongoing. The Commissioner considers there is a significant public interest in maintaining safe space for discussions, debates and deliberation while the process of formulating a policy is ongoing. He agreed with the public authority that premature disclosure in the face of strong media scrutiny could undermine the integrity of the policy formulation process. He accepts that disclosure of this information during the live policy process would be likely to increase the risk that officials may be less robust in their assessments of all the possible options.
Conversely, it could be argued that given the importance of the Legal Aid Bill, there was a strong public interest in disclosure to ensure that the process was transparent and that the government could be held accountable for its policy. The Commissioner accepts that this is a significant public interest argument for disclosure and further information about the policy formulation could enable the public to engage with the debate. The Commissioner considers that premature disclosure in the circumstances at the time of the request was unlikely to significantly enhance the robustness of the policy formulation. It was more likely that officials could have become overly cautious in their deliberations for fear of been misrepresented or accused of been unduly influenced by lobbyists.
Mr Mark Oaten MP requested disclosure of the feasibility study undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to “establish the full impact, costs and benefits of the introduction of identity cards”. The DWP refused to disclose the information on the basis the section 35(1)(a) exemption was engaged and that the public interest balance favoured the exemption being maintained.
The DWP argued that the class exemption itself assumed that the information will be harmful and repeats a similar argument made in the DFES case (Information Tribunal in DfES v Information Commissioner & the Evening Standard – EA/2006/0006).
The DWP contended that section 35 created a very important exemption and that there was a very strong public interest against disclosure of the deliberations of civil servants and ministers when developing and formulating policy. That at a time when ideas are being raised, tested, rejected, accepted and then as part of that process opinions, views and judgments are being sought and offered both within departments and between departments and between civil servants and ministers and back again, it is very important that the space to do this is protected. They therefore submitted that because of the inherent weight of the exemption itself that the public interest factors in favour of disclosure need to be particularly weighty for the balance to be determined in favour of disclosure.
The Information Commissioner and the Tribunal noted that the public interest in maintaining the exemption on the formulation or development of government policy (Section 35) did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, thus the information was disclosed.
The ICO argued that it is necessary to consider in the circumstances of each individual case as to whether the disclosure of the information will be harmful and that it was not correct to believe for every case arguments are engaged and at the same level of cogency or weight, irrespective of the nature of the information.
The ICO and Mr Oaten in their public interest arguments relied on the importance of the decision to introduce an ID card scheme. Mr Oaten suggested that he put it succinctly in a letter he wrote to a fellow MP, “the identity card scheme is a public sector project of unprecedented scale and complexity, and will incur costs running into several billions of pounds. It will fundamentally alter the way in which people access public services, and will have considerable financial implications for every adult citizen.” The ICO contended that there is a significant public interest raised by an MP whose job it is, particularly in opposition, to raise such matters. They also noted it would allow the public to better judge the Government’s performance, for example in relation to the Government giving due consideration to the financial implications of the scheme or its presentation of the scheme corresponding with advice it has been given. The disputed information would allow the public to better understand how the DWP was protecting the public purse by its prevention of benefit fraud. In any case disclosure of information is an aspect of good government.
The disputed information was also mature information. The ICO provided evidence to suggest “the Government was satisfied that the benefits of the identity cards scheme justified the costs” when it announced the decision to proceed to introduce ID cards in November 2003. The information was robust enough to withstand public scrutiny, it had been signed off by a DWP official “as a realistic appraisal, given the assumptions, and dependencies outlined.” The information was not incomplete or tentative which is evidenced by the fact figures were provided which show that the projections have remained largely the same over time.
The Tribunal upheld the ICO’s decision notice and dismissed the appeal. They found that the formulation and development of government policy exemption was engaged (section 35(1)(a)), that whilst the process of policy formulation could be split into two stages: an initial high-level decision to introduce ID cards, followed by further policy decisions on the detail of the scheme both stages would still have been the formulation of policy. However, the Tribunal noted that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, thus the information was disclosed.
The requester asked for the following information in relation with the construction of the “northern ring road” in Lenart v Slovenskih Goricah: the entire study on traffic which indicates the economic viability of the project, documents indicating the course of action, the project as part of the budget of the Republic of Slovenia.
The authority denied the request for access to the study which indicates the economic viability of the construction of the northern ring road pursuant to Sub-paragraph 9, Art 6 of the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ), since the documentation was still in the process of being drawn up and subject to consultation within the authority. According to the opinion of the authority, the internal review within the authority may only be concluded after an expert review of the documentation and after the adoption of the final version of the documentation which is than subject to further reviews and assessments performed by other bodies or public.
The requester appealed only against the denial of access to the entire study on traffic which indicates the economic viability of the construction of northern ring road. The Applicant pointed out that the authority failed to prove the how disclosure of the requested document would lead to misunderstanding of its content.
The Information Commissioner noted that the application of the exception to access because the documents are still in the process of being drawn up (Subpara 9, Par 1, Art. 6) contains three elements which must be taken cumulatively: – the document must be in the process of production, – the document must be subject of consultation by the authority, – specific harm test (the disclosure would lead to misunderstanding of its contents).
The Commissioner establishes that in the case under review the required terms and conditions for the existence of an exemption under Subpara 9, Par 1, Art 6 of ZDIJZ are not fulfilled.
The requested document was drawn up within the framework of preparing expert grounds for the development of national roads which is within the competence of the authority. Whether the authority agrees or not with the study ordered, or whether the study shall be supplemented or amended, does not influence the conclusion that the concrete document is drawn up and as such represents an integral whole.
The authority bound “the completion of the document” to the procedure under which the document was ordered, which is incorrect and contrary to the exemption to which the authority referred to. The explanation of this exemption in the manner as understood by the authority would in praxis lead to situation that public would be denied access to majority of documents drawn up in the process of adopting some key or final solutions; concretely in the procedure of constructing national roads, this would be contrary to public nature of work of the authority since the construction of national roads is in the public interest (Art 25 of the Public Roads Act, Official Gazette of RS, No.: 29/1997 with amendments, henceforth: ZJC).
The Commissioner emphasises that the construction of national road is a complex procedure which includes the planning, designing and construction due to which in the nature of matters leads to documents that by themselves may not represent the final product in the meaning of completeness of a particular procedure. However, the fact that a certain document represents only one of the documents within the framework of the construction of national road does not mean that such concrete document is still in the process of being drawn up. Each document by itself in a particular phase of the procedure actually represents a document which is – if in possession of an authority liable pursuant to the ZDIJZ – information of public character pursuant to Art 4 of ZDIJZ, namely irrespective of the fact that the content of such document does not represent the final text of the document with which the procedure was concluded.
In light of the aforementioned the Commissioner concludes that in the concrete case it is not a matter of a document in the process of being drawn up under Subpara 9, Par 1, Art 6 of ZDIJZ. The fact that the document was already drawn up by an external provider and the authority is in possession of the document means that the document was already completed by the external provider pursuant to Par 1, Art 7 of the Decree and represents the final report on their findings. The fact that further reviews may follow, i.e. expert review and adoption of final version of the document, cannot represent a reason for labelling the requested document as the document in the process of production, since the said document, as mentioned before, was completed when the party responsible for the preparation of the document sent the document to the ordering party, i.e. the authority. We would be able to talk about the document in the process of production if the text of the study was not written in whole.
The document as such would not stand the harm test under Subpara 9, Par 1, Art 6 of ZDIJZ, since the disclosure of such document cannot cause misunderstanding of its content. It is completely clear that it is a matter of study which is not a legally binding document yet only a professional-technical finding of experts who carried out the study on traffic-economic viability of the construction of the Lenart ring road. Consequently, such document most definitely cannot lead to misunderstanding of its content. The fact remains that the study contains position statement and findings reached by the party responsible for carrying out the study. Any eventual disagreement of the authority or any other person with the findings reached by the party responsible for carrying out the study cannot represent a reason to talk about misunderstanding of its content. Disagreements with proposed solution or possibilities that the authority reaches a different decision as proposed in the study may not be linked to misunderstanding of the content of the study.
The Commissioner concludes that in the concrete case none of the three elements forming condition for the existence of an exemption under Subpara 9. Par 1, Art 6 of ZDIJZ is not given since the entire study indicating the economic viability of the construction of the northern ring road in Lenart, requested by the Applicant, is no longer in the process of being drawn up and is not longer subject to consultations. Moreover, the disclosure of the study would not lead to misunderstanding of its content within the meaning of Subpara 9, Par 1, Art 6 of ZDIJZ.
The judge argued that memorial minutes are not public documents. They were prepared for the internal use of the authority.
The judge had argued that keeping memorial minutes is not based on law and not required by law. The minutes are not signed or otherwise confirmed. They are also not part of the case file. The minutes can contain information on negotiations conducted under the secrecy obligations.
The applicant argued that memorial minutes are never prepared solely for the judge and they cannot contain information on negotiations inside the court that could come under the secrecy obligations. The applicant also argued that the minutes only contain information that has anyway become public through the public hearing in the court.
The applicant stated that courts keep a lot of documents that are not part of the case file but are nevertheless public.
The document was considered to fall under Section 5(3)(2). As a note kept by a person working in the service of the authority, it was deemed not to be an official document as defined by law. Access was not granted.
Information requested Participant list (names and positions, professions or similar information of the participants) of a seminar on Finnish EU Policy and its aim.
The Prime Minister’s office mainly argued that the participant list was drafted for the communication between the authority and participants and it was not archived. Pursuant to Section 5(4) the document was prepared for internal activities and therefore the Act on Openness was not applicable in the case.
The applicant argued that participant lists of events that are publicly funded should always be public, particularly with regard to the participating NGOs and lobbyists. If the lists are not public, these organisations can be deemed to represent the political parties that are in power. Furthermore, the applicant argued that the organizer needs to know the participants for taxation purposes. As information in the possession of the tax authority, this information would be public.
The document was considered to be public. The court emphasized that presentations and a video clip from the event are on the government’s website. The court found that it cannot be construed that the 300 participants would somehow be acting on behalf of the authority and therefore Section 5(4) was not applicable. The list was not considered to have been drafted for internal communication purposes and it was considered to be an official document. It had become a public official document at the time the seminar was organised. The court also considered the issue from the perspective of protection of personal data. The Court found that participation to the seminar does not fall in the sphere of protection of privacy. The list did not consist a register of personal data.
Information requested Statistical information compiled by a private company at the request of the authority on prices of used vehicles.
Calculations and conclusions made by the authorities based on the background information.
Contract memo made between the ministry and the company.
The Ministry of Finance argued that a condition for the use of the information was that it would be kept confidential as a business secret. The Ministry also argued that as statistical information voluntarily given to the authority the documents are secret (reference to Section 24(1)(16) of the Act on Openness). To reinforce this argument the Ministry stated that without the understanding that the information is confidential, most likely, it would not have been possible for the authority to receive the information at all since the price for the information would have been too high.
The official had used the information as background information to make calculations that were presented in the government proposal. The Ministry argued that the calculations and conclusions were notes kept by the person working in the authority for himself and as such did not constitute an official document pursuant to Section 5(3)(2). These documents had not been given to anyone else. Only when the information had been written in the government proposal, did the information constitute an official document as provided by the act on Openness.
The applicant argued that in practice the amount of vehicle tax has been determined on the basis of the information received from the company. The applicant argued that it is implicit in the government proposal that the statements in the government proposal were based on some kind of a summary of the received price data and conclusions done based on the data. As such they cannot be regarded as internal notes as they are closely connected to the government proposal. The applicant argued that in fact the information is an unpublished part of the government proposal.
The applicant also argued that the business secret exception is not applicable. It is not possible to escape the transparency requirements of legislative drafting by outsourcing the collection of data. The commercial value of the information was also not significant anymore because of the lapse of time. On the contrary the significance of the information was in the fact that it served as a basis for decision-making.
The applicant also raised doubts that the aim of the research had not been to objectively determine the price of used cars but to produce information to justify small tax reductions.
The Court found that all the information the applicant had asked was public i.e. the contract memo made between the Ministry and the company on providing the information, the price information provided by the company and the calculations made by the official for the preparation of the government proposal.
For the price information the Court found that the information was not classified as business secrets nor was it to be considered to be secret statistical information as provided by Section 24(1)(16). The court specified that the information, as such, was not secret and any other company could have collected it. Nevertheless, the value of the information was in the compilation of the information in a way that had required significant effort from the company. Regardless of this, the court found that the information did not constitute a business secret as provided in section 24(1)(20), because it does not specifically concern information about the company. The court also found that the fact that the Ministry and the company had agreed on the confidentiality of the information does not make a difference.
Moreover, the court stated that the calculations and conclusions had been made in the preparation of a legislative government proposal and the results are shown in the government proposal and thus they are not internal notes as provided by section 5(3)(2) of the act on openness but official documents.
The judgment had two dissenting opinions. Both opinions agreed with the interpretation of section 5(3)(2) of the Act on Openness in the judgment i.e. with the fact that the calculations and conclusions of the official were official documents and subject to the act on Openness.
The requester made a request to the Department of Education and Skills seeking access to all records in relation to the qualification called the “Secondary School Teacher’s Drawing Certificate”. This included records, briefing notes etc. created before and after a meeting the requester had with a senior official of the Department, other records, reports and minutes of meetings of the Department’s Management Advisory Committee (MAC) which contain records concerning the requester’s meeting with the senior public official.
Among other exemptions, the Department refused to release certain portions of a report (“Mr Byrne’s report”), citing deliberative processes (Section 20) still underway. The Department has released the report to the requester with the exception of material which it has redacted on pages 18-21, 24-27, 32, 35, 117-119 (and material which contains personal information or the names of examiners).
The Information Commissioner did not ordinarily consider a report which was authored in 2007 to be eligible for exemption under section 20(1) as it would be expected that the decision making process in relation to the future of the “TS” examinations should have been finalised. The Commissioner requested that the Department provide evidence that the records in question form part of a decision-making process. The Department provided clarification in relation to both the delay in carrying out its review of the examinations and the current position in relation to the review.
The requester argued that the Byrne report is a discrete piece of work and that the deliberative process cannot apply to it. However, the Commissioner found that the Byrne report contains a critical analysis of the examinations. The Commissioner was also satisfied from examining the Department’s arguments that the Department is now actively engaged in carrying out a review of the examinations and that final decisions have yet to be made by the Minister.
The Commissioner found that provisions of section 20(1) applied to the records under review and that they contain information which relates to the deliberative process. The Commissioner then applied a public interest test and found the Department has demonstrated that there is, at this point in time, a strong public interest in maintaining its ability to develop appropriate policy responses in relation to its review of the State examinations without such information being made public before they have been properly formulated.
» Keep learning about transparency of decision-making in Europe.

References: § 10
 Art 6
 Art. 6
 Art 6
 Art 4
 Art 6
 Art 7
 Art 6
 Art 6
 Art 6