Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Media Law Volume 5, 2013 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
452
Views
9
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Access to Information as a Human Right in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

Päivi Tiilikka Professor of Media Law, University of Helsinki, Finland. The author wishes to thank ECtHR judge LLD Päivi Hirvelä; former ECtHR judge, LLD and judge of the Supreme Administrative Court Matti Pellonpää; Professors Olli Mäenpää and Tuomas Ojanen; and LLD Tobias Bräutigam and researchers LLD Suvi Sankari, Dr Daithí Mac Sithigh and LLM Anu Talus for the useful comments they made on the manuscript. Of course, the author is responsible for any mistakes or misunderstandings that may remain.
Pages 79-103 | Published online: 07 May 2015

  • 1 Access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offces and agencies of the Eu is guaranteed in Art 42 of the charter of Fundamental rights of the European union (‘the charter’, 2010/c 83/02). the right of access to documents is an independent fundamental right that is not subordinate to freedom of expression and information, though it is linked to freedom of expression, democracy and good administration. Access to documents is also guaranteed in Art 15(3) of the treaty on the Functioning of the European union (tFEu, c 83/54). regulation (Ec) 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, council and commission documents contains more specifc provisions on access to documents and is currently under review. Eu legislation is not further discussed here.
  • Zana v Turkey ECHR 1997–VII, § 51; Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) App nos 40660/08 and 60641/08 (Gc, 7 February 2012), § 101; Axel Springer v Germany App no 39954/08 (Gc, 7 February 2012), § 78; Gillberg v Sweden App no 41723/06 (3 April 2012), § 82. this argument is used in dozens of judgments: see eg Barthold v Germany (1985) Series A no 90 § 58 and Handyside v UK (1976) Series A no 24, § 49.
  • See eg Lingens v Austria (1986) Series A no 103, § 41; Zana v Turkey (n 2) § 51; Handyside v UK (n 2) § 49; Nilsen and Johnsen v Norway (Gc) ECHR 1999–VIII, § 43; Editions Plon v France ECHR 2004–IV, § 42; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens; July v France ECHR 2007–IV, § 45; Von Hannover (No 2) (Gc) (n 2) § 101.
  • DE Haes and Gijsels v Belgium, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997–I, § 37; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway (Gc) ECHR 1999–III, § 59; Colombani and others v France ECHR 2002–V, § 55; Selistö v Finland App no 56767/00 (16 november 2004), § 48; Lahtonen v Finland App no 29576/09 (17 January 2012), § 65; Kaperzy?ski v Poland App no 43206/07 (3 April 2012), § 55.
  • Jersild v Denmark (1994) Series A no 289, § 31; Observer and Guardian v UK (1991 plenary) Series A no 216, § 5; Gaw?da v Poland ECHR 2002–II, § 34; Kaperzy?ski v Poland (n 4) § 56; Von Hannover (No 2) (Gc) (n 2), § 102; Centro Europa 7 Srl and Di Stefano v Italy (Gc, 7 June 2012), § 131. However, freedom of expression can be restricted according to the preconditions set out in Art 10(2) ECHR.
  • Sanoma Uitgevers BV v The Netherlands App no 38224/03 (Gc, 14 September 2010), § 50.
  • Roemen and Schmit v Luxembourg ECHR 2003–IV, § 47; Ernst and others v Belgium App no 33400/96 (15 July 2003), § 103.
  • Tillack v Belgium ECHR 2007–XIII, § 56.
  • council of Europe convention on Access to offcial documents (cEtS no 205), Explanatory report, preamble, subsection (1).
  • D Banisar, 'Freedom of Information: International trends and national Security', Geneva centre for the democratic control of Armed Forces (dcAF) conference paper (2002), www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/articles/foia_intl_trends_and_nat_sec.pdf; d Banisar, 'the right to Information and Privacy: Balancing rights and Managing conficts', World Bank Institute Governance Working Paper (2011), 5; W Hins and d Voorhoof, 'Access to State-Held Information as a Fundamental right under the European convention on Human rights' (2007) 3 European Constitutional Law Review 114, 114.
  • D Banisar, Freedom of Information around the World 2006: A Global Survey of Access to Government Information Laws (Privacy International, 2006) 7.
  • M Augustyn and C Monda, 'transparency and Access to documents in the Eu: ten years on from the Adoption of regulation 1049/2001', EIPAscope 01/2011, 17, http://aei.pitt.edu/33492.
  • See Banisar (n 11) 7.
  • DC Brabham, 'crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and cases' (2008) 14(1) International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 75, 75–76.
  • See http://mps-expenses.guardian.co.uk.
  • T Mendel, 'Freedom of Information: A comparative Legal Survey', united nations Educational Scientifc and cultural organisation, regional Bureau for communication and Information (2003), 133.
  • This is very well depicted on Banisar's map (2011): www.right2info.org/resources/publications/foi-map-by-david-banisar/view. See also Banisar (n 11).
  • Banisar (n 17) 5–6. In 2006 nearly 70 countries had adopted FOI laws and another 50 were attempting to do so; see Banisar (n 11) 6.
  • tobias Bräutigam divides FOI laws into three generations: (1) frst generation laws provide certain rights and also exceptions to them; (2) second generation laws oblige public bodies to publish and otherwise disseminate key information; (3) third generation laws oblige states to make FOI legislation work in practice, for example by improving fling systems and training offcials. Rechtsvergleichung als Konfiktvergleich. Das deutche Informationsfreiheitsgesetz aus Perspektive des US-amerikanischen und fnnischen Rechts (Helsinki, 2008).
  • T Mendel, Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Study (unESco, 2nd edn 2008) 37–38, 144–6, 151–2.
  • REC (2002)2, adopted 21 February 2002. See also the declaration of the committee of Ministers of the council of Europe on the freedom of expression and information (adopted 29 April 1982); recommendations of the committee of Ministers to member States no r (81) 19 on the access to information held by public authorities; no r (91) 10 on the communication to third parties of personal data held by public bodies; no r (97) 18 concerning the protection of personal data collected and processed for statistical purposes; and no r (2000) 13 on a European policy on access to archives.
  • council of Europe convention on Access to offcial documents (cEtS no 205), Explanatory report, section I (i) and preamble, subsection (1). on the treaty's goals, see the council of Europe convention on Access to offcial documents, Explanatory report, preamble, subsection (1).
  • See, inter alia, Cossey v UK (1990, plenary) Series A no 184, § 35; Chapman v UK (Gc) ECHR 2001–I, § 70; Goodwin v UK App no 28957/95 (11 July 2002), § 74.
  • S Schaumburg-Müller, PresseRet (Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2003) 84; H thorgeirsdóttir, Journalism Worthy of the Name: Freedom within the Press and the Affrmative Side of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus nijhoff, 2005) 54. the standard can hardly go down, but it can rise when the standards and practices relating to the right in question rise in general in member countries.
  • A Nicol Qc, G Millar Qc and A Sharland, Media Law & Human Rights (oxford university Press, 2nd edn 2009) 12.
  • For example, Tyrer v UK Series A no 26, § 31; Matthews v UK (Gc) ECHR 1991–I, § 39.
  • For example, Chapman v UK (Gc) (n 23) § 70; Cossey v UK (n 23) § 35; Stafford v UK (Gc) ECHR 2002– IV, §§ 68–69; Christine Goodwin v UK (Gc) ECHR 2002–VI, § 74; nicol, Millar and Sharland (n 25) 13.
  • For example, Vo v France (Gc) ECHR 2004–VIII, § 84; Evans v UK (Gc) ECHR 2007–I; Egeland v Norway App no 34438/04 (16 April 2009), §§ 54–55. the scrutiny can sometimes focus on states which are not member states of the European council; see Christine Goodwin v UK (Gc) ECHR 2002–VI, §§ 84–85; Nikula v Finland ECHR 2002–II, § 22. the Inter-American court of Human rights has in turn given regional, European and global scrutiny to the legal status of access to information; see Claude Reyes et al v Chile (19 September 2006).
  • Eremiášová and Pechová v Czech Republic App no 23944/04 (ECTHR, 16 February 2012), §§ 107–9. See also, for example, Osman v UK reports 1998–VIII, § 115.
  • See eg Eremiasova and Pechová v Czech Republic (n 29) § 130; Trufn v Romania App no 3990/04 (20 october 2009), § 42. the importance of an effective and impartial investigation is particularly important when a policeman is suspected of causing a death by a direct action or by omission.
  • See eg Vlaevi v Bulgarie App nos 272/05 and 890/05 (EctHr, 2 September 2010), § 86; Trufn v Romania (n 30) § 45.
  • McKerr v UK ECHR 2001–III §§ 147–8; O?ur v Turkey (Gc) ECHR 1999–III, § 92.
  • Karandja v Bulgaria App no 69180/01 (ECTHR, 7 october 2010), §§ 67–68.
  • Ramsahai and others v The Netherlands (Gc) ECHR 2007–II, § 347; McKerr v UK (n 32) § 129; Jordan v UK ECHR 2001–III (extracts), § 121.
  • Ramsahai and others v The Netherlands (n 35) § 348.
  • Eremiasova and Pechová v Czech Republic (n 29) §§ 149–50. See also Vlaevi v Bulgarie Apps nos 272/05 and 890/05 (2 September 2010), § 86; Velcea and Maz?re v Romania App no 64301/01 (1 december 2009), § 107; Finucane v UK ECHR 2003–VIII, §§ 82–84.
  • Axen v Germany (1983, plenary) Series A no 72, § 25.
  • Shapovalov v Ukraine App no 45835/05 (ECTHR 31 July 2012), § 49.
  • P4 Radio Hele Norge ASA v Norway (dec) ECHR 2003–VI.
  • Feldbrugge v Netherlands (1986, plenary) Series A no 99; Kerojärvi v Finland (1995) Series A no 322, §§ 42–43; KP v Finland App no 31764/96 (31 May 2001, Insurance court); Loiseau v France (dec) ECHR 2003–XII, § 7; Nideröst-Huber v Switzerland ECHR 1997-I, § 28.
  • Natunen v Finland App no 21022/04 (31 March 2009), § 39. the same had already been stated in the Grand chamber judgment Rowe and Davis v UK (Gc) ECHR 2000–II, § 60. See also Brandstetter v Austria (1991) Series A no 211, §§ 66–67; Edwards v UK (1992) Series A no 247-B, §§ 35–36; Janatuinen v Finland App no 28552/05 (8 december 2009), § 40.
  • Natunen v Finland (n 41) § 40.
  • See also Janatuinen v Finland (n 41) § 42' Rowe and Davis v UK (n 41) § 61 and references therein.
  • See Kuopila v Finland App no 27752/95 (27 April 2000), §§ 35–38.
  • MS v Finland App no 46601/99 (22 March 2005), §§ 30–37.
  • See eg Nideröst-Huber v Switzerland (n 40) §§ 23–27; KP v Finland App no 31764/96, §§ 27–28.
  • Niemietz v Germany (1992) Series A no 251-B, § 29; PG and JH v UK ECHR 2001–IX, § 56.
  • Von Hannover v Germany ECHR 2004–VI, § 50; Egeland and Hanseid v Norway App no 34438/04 (16 April 2009), § 59.
  • Niemietz v Germany Series A no 251-B, § 29; Botta v Italy reports 1998–I, § 32; PG and JH v UK (n 47) § 56; Peck v UK ECHR 2003–I, § 57.
  • See eg Jäggi v Switzerland ECHR 2006–X, § 25; Backlund v Finland App no 36498/05 (ECTHR, 6 July 2010), § 34; Moretti and Benedetti v Italy App no 16318/07 (27 April 2010), §§ 48–52; Marckx v Belgium (1979) Series A no 31, § 52.
  • Johnston and others v Ireland (1986) Series A no 112, § 55; Jäggi v Switzerland (n 50) § 33. See also Marckx v Belgium (n 50) § 58; X and Y v the Netherlands (1985) Series A no 91, § 23; Schüssel v Austria App no 42409/98 (ECTHR, 21 February 2002), § 2; Pfeifer v Austria App no 12556/03 (15 november 2007), § 37; KU v Finland App no 2872/02 (2 december 2008), §§ 42–43; Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) (n 2) § 98.
  • Gaskin v UK (1989 Gc) Series A no 160, § 37. See also Godelli v Italy App no 33783/09 (25 September 2012), §§ 68–72.
  • Sunday Times v UK (no 1, 1979, plenary) Series A no 30, § 65; Koprivica v Montenegro App no 41158/09 (22 november 2011), § 55.
  • See eg Gaskin v UK (n 52); Leander v Sweden (1987) Series A no 116, § 74.
  • Guerra and others v Italy reports 1998–I, no 64, § 53. With regard to Art 10, the court reached the same conclusion in Sîrbu and others v Moldova App nos 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01 (15 June 2004), § 18 and Roche v UK (Gc) ECHR 2005–X §§ 172–3. the same grounding was already confrmed in 1987 in Leander v Sweden (n 54) § 74. In Leander the applicant had been considered a ‘security risk’ and was therefore excluded from employment in a museum that was adjacent to a military security zone. the secret police register contained information relating to Mr Leander's private life. According to the court, both the storing and the release of such information, which were coupled with the refusal to allow the applicant an opportunity to refute it, amounted to an interference with his right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Art 8(1). taking into consideration the wide margin of appreciation, there was no breach of Art 8. Based on the same grounds as the Guerra case, there was no breach of Art 10 either.
  • Eccleston v UK App no 42841/02 (dec 18 May 2004), § 3.
  • Loiseau v France (dec) ECHR 2003–XII, § 7.
  • Sdružení Jihočeské Matky v Czech Republic App no 19101/03 (ECTHR, 10 July 2006).
  • Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v Hungary App no 37374/05 (ECTHR, 14 April 2009).
  • the cases referred to and removed from the quotation are Dammann v Switzerland App no 77551/01 (25 April 2006), § 52; Steel and Morris v UK ECHR 2005–II, § 89; Riolo v Italy App no 42211/07 (17 July 2008), § 63; Vides Aizsardz?bas Klubs v Latvia App no 57829/00 (27 May 2004), § 42.
  • As already mentioned, in Sdružení Jiho?eské Matky the court explicitly recognised that the czech authorities' refusal to provide information amounted to an interference with the right to receive information as guaranteed by Art 10; hence, the refusal had to meet the conditions set out in Art 10(2).
  • D Voorhoof: 'European court of Human rights, case of tASZ v Hungary', IrIS 2009–7:2/1, http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2009/7/article1.
  • RE Herr, 'the right to receive Information under Article 10 of the ECHR' [2011] Tidskrift utgiven av Juridiska Föreningen i Finland 193, 209. Herr refers here to Hins and Voorhoof (n 10).
  • D Adamski, 'Approximating a Workable compromise on Access to offcial documents: the 2011 developments in the European courts' (2012) 49 Common Market Law Review 521, 547.
  • See also Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v Moldova App no 42864/05 (27 november 2007), § 31, in which the court emphasised the role and signifcance of journalists and the press and stated that '[p]articularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure affecting this role of the press and limiting access to information which the public has the right to receive'.
  • Gillberg v Sweden App no 41723/06 (ECTHR, Gc, 3 April 2012).
  • Ibid, §§ 66–67. See also Sidabras and Džiautas v Lithuania ECHR 2004–VIII, § 49; Mikolajová v Slovakia App no 4479/03 (ECTHR 18 January 2011), § 57.
  • Gillberg v Sweden (n 66) § 83.
  • Shapovalov v Ukraine (n 38) § 68. the court also referred to Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v Hungary (n 59) § 38.
  • Sanoma Uitgevers BV v The Netherlands (n 6) § 70; Observer and Guardian v UK (n 5) § 60; Sunday Times v UK (No 2) (n 53); Association Ekin v France ECHR 2001–VIII, § 56; Al?nak v Turkey App no 40287/98 (ECTHR 29 March 2005), § 37.
  • Association Ekin v France (n 70) §§ 56–57; Al?nak v Turkey (n 70) §§ 37–38.
  • D Voorhoof and H cannie, 'Freedom of Expression and Information in a democratic Society' (2010) 72 International Communication Gazette 407, 411.
  • Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v Sweden App no 23883/06 (ECTHR, 16 december 2008), § 31. the court referred to Marckx v Belgium (1979) Series A no 31, § 31 and Young, James and Webster v UK (1981) Series A no 44, § 49. on the positive obligation to protect the right of freedom of expression, see also Özgür Gündem v Turkey ECHR 2000–III, § 43, in which the court stated: 'the court recalls the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy. Genuine, effective exercise of this freedom does not depend merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals.' See also VGT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland 2001–VI, § 45; Ding v Turkey App nos 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09 (14 September 2010), §§ 106–9.
  • Here the court referred to Autronic AG v Switzerland (1990) Series A no 178, § 47–48.
  • See also the cases the court referred to: Özgür Gündem v Turkey (n 73) §§ 42–46; Fuentes Bobo v Spain App no 39293/98 (29 February 2000), § 38; Appleby and others v UK ECHR 2003–VI, § 39.
  • Manole and Others v Moldova App no 13936/02 (ECTHR, 17 September 2009) (extracts), §§ 99–100, 107. In comparison it is worth mentioning that the Inter-American court of Human rights has stated, when interpreting the American convention on Human rights in the judgment Claude Reyes v Chile (16 September 2006), § 77, that 'by expressly stipulating the right to “seek” and “receive” “information”, Article 13 of the convention protects the right of all individuals to request access to State-held information, with the exceptions permitted by the restrictions established in the convention. consequently, this article protects the right of the individual to receive such information and the positive obligation of the State to provide it, so that the individual may have access to such information or receive an answer that includes a justifcation when, for any reason permitted by the convention, the State is allowed to restrict access to the information in a specifc case.'

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.