Access to environmental information – Practice in Germany
A shortoutline of a study - carried out by the Independent Institute for Environmental Issues (UfU) 2008-2009
Having a new Environmental Information Act and 15 independent Acts of the "Bundesländer"(counties) a Freedom of Information Act and several independent Acts on Freedom of Information in some Bundesländer, UfU wanted to analyse the practical use ofthe legal basis given through this 23 different laws. Therefore it carried out 2008-2009 an empirical research and sended out 181 so called applications for access to environmental informations. UfU used for the study the method of retrospectice impact assessment.
Results of some criteria
1. Answers received
Out of 181 questions only 84 were directly answered, 35 applications were rejected and 21 were forwarded and 41 applications were not answered at all. Reasons for rejection of the answers were mainly, that the body we consulted for this information was not responsible. From the 21 forwarded questions 17 were positively decided and we were granted the information. In 5 cases we were rejected from the second institution and 6 of them did not answer the forwarded request. From 35 rejections, 15 times we were told the responsible body, in this case the appeal in our law, to support applicants and forward applications was not considered. Further a reason for rejection was that no data on the question was available, this applied in 7% ofthe rejections. That the institution asked was not a public authority with the obligation to answer, applied in 6 cases. That the data was in process answered 6 institutions. In 12 % of the rejections we were asked for clarifications concerning our question.
Getting no answer at all in 22 % of applications is certainly the biggest flaw the study revealed. But also being rejected in 19% of the times mainly for not being responsible we find quite concerning. Out of this 19% we were told theresponsible body in 42% so 8-10% of our applications could have been answered,if the institution we were consulting would have forwarded our request.
2. Time limit
Regardingthe time limit the most of the answers received were okay – 120 (66 %) of themanswered in the time limit of one month. 5% of the answers took longer than 40days, without informing us about the delay
3. Costs
Concerningthe costs this study shows relatively good results. 72 % of the answers weregiven without requesting a refund. 4 answers requested a sum up to 100 Euro and4 a sum up to 500 Euro. Only one institution wanted to charge more than 500Euro for the information.
4. Legal persons performing publicadministrative functions
We also wanted to test, whether private entities performing public administrative functions were reacting differently on our information requests. So 32 of the 181 applications were sent to such entities. Of those 50 % were answered, 19% were rejected and 31 % not responded to. This higher rate of no responses either shows that the information about the information responsibility was not communicated very well or that internal organization of such entities is notvery good. The 19 % of rejections is equal with the rate of rejections we got from state institutions.
For more details or the complete study please contact:
Franziska Sperfeld, Michael Zschiesche
Tel:++49/30/ 428 499 -333, - 332
