Manchester, 23rd of May, 2006

Commissioner or Ombudsman

Nataša Pirc Musar,

Information Commissioner

Slovenia

• 3 systems (regarding appeals):

– Courts (before that higher agencies - Croatia, Slovakia, Israel, Lithuania)

– Commissioners or Commissions• Data Protection Authorities (Estonia, Latvia)

– Ombudsman (or courts)• Only possible where FOI is a constitutional right

Access to Public Information

Commissioner or OmbudsmanCommissioner or Commission:

Ireland France

Mexico Portugal

Canada Belgium

Germany Thailand

UK India

Serbia

Slovenia

Ombudsman:

Sweden

Norway

Bosnia&Herzegovina

New Zealand

EU

Spain

Hungary (specialised)

Commissioner or OmbudsmanCompetencies of both / Slovenian model

• Autonomous, independent state body• head of body elected in the Parliament• budget determined by the Parliament

• constitutional court review

• unrestricted access to all documents• can call anybody for a witness• access to all premises of state bodies

Commissioner or Ombudsman-minusesCommissioner or Commission:• Can be sued by public bodies in courts• can not start the procedure on its own initiative (only based on the appeal)

Ombudsman:• “Toothless Tiger”• complaints by natural persons only• no binding powers, only opinions and recommendations• informal procedure

Commissioner or Ombudsman-plusesCommissioner or Commission:• binding deceisions (penalties)• wider jurisdiction • complaints by legal and natural persons• inspection competencies (hiding documents)• can deal with the case even when in progress• formal procedure

Ombudsman:• beside annual report also special reports• can start the procedure on its own initiative• can give initiative to change the law or executive regulation• can suggest disciplinary proceeding

• Does it matter who has the appeal powers and how strong they are?

• YES AND NO (Pragmatical answer)• It depends on:

– Mentality of people (are they used to secrecy or they “have guts” to ask)

– Mentality of public officials – Level of democracy in the country (length and

tradition play role)

Access to Public Information

• Does it matter how well Freedom of Information is implemented in the legal system of each country?

• DEFINITELY YES • It depends on:

– Whether FOI is in Constitution– Whether country has FOIA– Number of exceptions (type of exceptions)– Public Interest Test

Access to Public Information

Commissioner or Ombudsman

Commissioner or Ombudsman

• Is there a correlation between transparency and corruption?

• YES• More transparent the country, less

corruption

• Corruption Index 2005

Access to Public Information

1. Island

2. New Zealand

2. Finland

4. Denmark

5. Singapore

6. Sweden

7. Switzerland

8. Norway

9. Australia

10. Austria

Source: http://www.transparency.org

11. UK

11. Holland

13. Luxembourg

14. Canada

15. Hong Kong

16. Germany

17. USA

18. France

19. Ireland

19. Belgium

Source: http://www.transparency.org

32. Botswana

32. Qatar

32. Taiwan

32. Uruguay

36. Bahrain

37. Cyprus

37. Jordan

39. Malaysia

40. Hungary

40. Italy

40. South Korea

21. Chile

21. Japan

23. Spain

24. Barbados

25. Malta

26. Portugal

27. Estonia

28. Israel

28. Oman

30. UA Emirates

31. Slovenia

Source: http://www.transparency.org

44. Lithuania

47. Czech Rep.

47. Greece

47. Slovakia

51. Latvia

55. Bulgaria

65. Mexico

70. Poland

70. Croatia

85. Romania

107. Belarus

149. Pakistan

150. Sudan

151. Angola

152. Ivory Coast

152. Equ. Guinea

152. Nigeria

155. Haiti

155. Myanmar

155. Turkmenistan

158. Bangladesh

158. Chad

Access to public information and corruption

– Though FOI is not enough to fight corruption– But it can be a tool

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on April 11, 2006 puts "the media and freedom of information" at the heart of his anti-corruption agenda.

www.ic-rs.si

Thank you for your attention!