EU Citizens’ Right to Know: The Improbable Adoption of a European Freedom of Information Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 303-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Öberg
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Government ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Right

There is without doubt a radical difference between the culture of open government in Sweden and the until recently prevailing culture of secrecy in Britain and within the European Union. From a classic British sceptic’s perspective, “public access to official documents is deemed unnecessary, since British democracy has functioned for so long without it”. The British “have always relied heavily, although not always successfully, on the concept of ‘ministerial responsibility’ to Parliament in order to secure public trust in government”. The mainstream of eighteenth-century British political thought held that the nation’s political well-being required the foundation of an informed gentleman citizenry. By the middle decades of the eighteenth-century, the movement away from the idea of a citizenry composed exclusively of gentlemen was firmly established on both sides of the Atlantic. It became increasingly acknowledged that men of the “meaner sort” should have the right to hold opinions on public affairs and ought to be allowed to protest against governments and laws they deemed improper.

EU Citizens’ Right to Know: The Improbable Adoption of a European Freedom of Information Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 303-328
Author(s):  
Ulf Öberg
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Government ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Right

There is without doubt a radical difference between the culture of open government in Sweden and the until recently prevailing culture of secrecy in Britain and within the European Union. From a classic British sceptic’s perspective, “public access to official documents is deemed unnecessary, since British democracy has functioned for so long without it”. The British “have always relied heavily, although not always successfully, on the concept of ‘ministerial responsibility’ to Parliament in order to secure public trust in government”. The mainstream of eighteenth-century British political thought held that the nation’s political well-being required the foundation of an informed gentleman citizenry. By the middle decades of the eighteenth-century, the movement away from the idea of a citizenry composed exclusively of gentlemen was firmly established on both sides of the Atlantic. It became increasingly acknowledged that men of the “meaner sort” should have the right to hold opinions on public affairs and ought to be allowed to protest against governments and laws they deemed improper.

The Right to Know in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

It was acknowledged in the 1997 White Paper Your Right To Know that the United Kingdom could learn much from the experience of other countries with established FOI regimes. The draftsman of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 had regard to the statutory schemes of five such countries whose jurisprudence has precedent value in our courts: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States. Chapter 25 looks at their different approaches to the fundamental elements of any FOI regime, and gives examples of how their courts have interpreted and applied the respective statutes. The chapter notes common themes and recurrent sources of controversy, notably delays in responding to requests, charges for access, and the position of affected third parties. It traces how the legislation in each country has been adapted over the years, and where there is pressure for yet further reforms.

scholarly journals Freedom of Information in the European Union

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
The Right

The Treaty of Lisbon 2007 made the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. Article 42 of the Charter sets out the right of access to documents, and today has the same legal value as the Treaties. The law relating to public access to EU documents is in Council Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. It is directly applicable in all Member States. In 2008 the Commission released a proposal for amending the Regulation but no amendments have yet been made. The Regulation, which is examined in detail in Chapter 11, including its definitions and exceptions, is attractive in its brevity compared with the 2000 Act. Another parallel regime for access to environmental information has been created by Regulation (EC) 1367/2006 applying the Aarhus Convention to the Community Institutions. The chapter also discusses the proposals for reform made by the European Ombudsman and others prompted by recent decisions of the European Court.

P–477 The child’s right to know vs. the parents’ right not to tell: the attitudes of couples undergoing fertility treatments towards identity-release gamete donation

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Simas ◽  
D Braga ◽  
A Setti ◽  
R Melamed ◽  
A Iaconell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Gamete Donation ◽  
Biological Origin ◽  
Gamete Donor ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Study question Do couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ART) have a different perception of anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation than a population interested in the subject? Summary answer Compared with a population interested in the subject, more couples undergoing ART believed the child shouldn’t be given information that would identify the gamete-donor. What is known already Recent research has investigated the psychological well-being of parents and children born through gamete donation, focusing on the possibility of having the donor’s identity revealed. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring; however, there is a global trend towards programs using donors that are identifiable to the resulting offspring at maturity. While some countries only allow the use of identity-release egg donation, others only allow anonymous-donation, and in some countries both types of donation are practiced. However, the attitudes concerning anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation, in a country where only anonymous donation is allowed, are still unknown. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study was performed from 01/Sep/2020 to 15/Dec/2020. For that, surveys through online-platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART, (ART-group, n = 358) or those interested in the subject, who accessed the website of a university-affiliated IVF-center (interested-group, n = 122). Participants in the ART-group were invited via e-mail, with a cover-letter outlining the survey and a link to access it and participants in the interested-group accessed the questionnaire via website. Participants/materials, setting, methods The survey collected information on demographic characteristics and the participant’s attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors. The questions were: (i) In the case of children conceived through ART, do you believe that revealing the method of conception may affect the relationship between children and their parents? (ii) Once the method of conception is revealed, do you believe that the child has the right to know the gamete donor? (iii) If yes, when? Main results and the role of chance Most of the participants answered that the relationship between children and parents wouldn’t be affected by the child’s knowledge of the origin of their conception, regardless of the group (83.6% vs 82.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively, p = 0.868). Most participants in the ART-group answered that the sperm donor identity shouldn’t be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same (65.4% vs 50.8%, p = 0.044). The same result was observed when participants were asked if the oocyte donor should be identifiable (64.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.050). When asked when the donor’s identity should be revealed to the child, no significant differences were noted in the responses among the groups (p = 0.868). Most of the participants who believe that the child has the right of learning the donor’s identity, stated that “the donor’s identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin” (67.2% vs 67.5%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively). “Since birth” was the second most common response, (21.0% vs 19.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), while “when the child turns 18 years-old” (9.2% vs 11.2%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), and “sometime during teenage years” (2.5% vs 2.4%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively) were less common answers. Limitations, reasons for caution Lack of adequate opportunities to conduct face to face interview and lack of knowledge of the real state of the website participants, concerning infertility or being involved in ART. The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size may also be reasons for caution, Wider implications of the findings: It has been discussed that, whether or not children or parents are harmed by knowing their biological origins, donor offspring have the right to know. However, when facing the situation, couples undergoing ART would argue that in case of gamete donation, there are reasons for not telling the child. Trial registration number Not applicable

scholarly journals Informal mental health patients: what are they told of their legal rights?

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-62
Author(s):  
Russell Ashmore ◽  
Neil Carver
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Information Leaflets ◽  
Written Information

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine what written information is given to informally admitted patients in England and Wales regarding their legal rights in relation to freedom of movement and treatment. Design/methodology/approach Information leaflets were obtained by a search of all National Health Service mental health trust websites in England and health boards in Wales and via a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request. Data were analysed using content analysis. Findings Of the 61 organisations providing inpatient care, 27 provided written information in the form of a leaflet. Six provided public access to the information leaflets via their website prior to admission. Although the majority of leaflets were accurate the breadth and depth of the information varied considerably. Despite a common legal background there was confusion and inconsistency in the use of the terms informal and voluntary as well as inconsistency regarding freedom of movement, the right to refuse treatment and discharge against medical advice. Research limitations/implications The research has demonstrated the value of Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests in obtaining data. Further research should explore the effectiveness of informing patients of their rights from their perspective. Practical implications Work should be undertaken to establish a consensus of good practice in this area. Information should be consistent, accurate and understandable. Originality/value This is the only research reporting on the availability and content of written information given to informal patients about their legal rights.

scholarly journals Attempt to increase the transparency

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rastislav Munk
Keyword(s):  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right

The author deals with problems related to the Amendment to the Freedom of Information Act in the Slovak Republic in this article. In the introduction, the author assesses the legal regulation of the use of the right to information in the Slovak Republic. Subsequently, the author discusses the legal regulation of the use of the right to information in the Slovak Republic and expresses its attitude towards the legal regulation of the use of the right to information in the Slovak Republic, underlining the possibility of adopting legislative changes. It is also concerned with the Amendment to the Freedom of Information Act and with the practical problems associated with the right to information.

La spinta verso una legislazione europea comune sul diritto di conoscere le proprie origini genetiche / The push towards common European legislation with respect to the right to know one’s genetic origins

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 747-761
Author(s):  
Gianluca Montanari Vergallo ◽  
Natale Mario Di Luca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Anonymous Birth ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Genetic Origins ◽  
The Right

A venti anni dalla sua approvazione, la Convenzione di Oviedo necessita di un aggiornamento. Infatti, non affronta la questione del diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa di conoscere l’identità dei donatori di gameti. La Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo ha recentemente stabilito che: a) il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini biologiche è tutelato dall’art. 8 della Convenzione dei diritti dell’uomo; b) tale diritto deve essere bilanciato con quello della madre biologica di rimanere anonima (c.d. parto anonimo). Al fine di trovare tale bilanciamento, una possibile soluzione consiste nel richiedere ai giudici di convocare la madre per chiederle se intende revocare l’anonimato. Se la madre ribadisce la propria originaria intenzione di rimanere sconosciuta, il Tribunale non può consentire al figlio di conoscere la sua identità. Gli autori analizzano anche altre due questioni non prese in considerazione dalla Corte europea: a) l’equilibrio tra il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini e quello dei donator di gamete all’anonimato; b) se tale diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa vincoli i genitori legali a rivelargli le modalità del concepimento. Tali problemi e l’importanza degli interessi in gioco inducono gli autori a sostenere che la scelta di usare il citato art. 8 come criterio di giudizio non è affatto ottimale. Appare preferibile affrontare queste questioni attraverso un aggiornamento della Convenzione di Oviedo o comunque con modalità tali da arrivare ad una regolamentazione che sia uniforme all’interno dell’Unione europea. ---------- Twenty years since it was opened for signature, the Oviedo Convention needs updating. It does not deal with the issue of the donor-conceived children’s right to know the identity of the gamete donors. The European Court of Human Rights has recently stated that: a) the right to know one’s biological background is protected by article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights; b) such a right must be balanced with the biological mother’s right to anonymity (anonymous birth). In order to find such balancing, a possible solution might be to require judges to summon mothers to ask them whether they would like to reverse their decision to be anonymous. If the mother reaffirms her intention to remain unknown, the court may not allow the child to learn of her identity and contact her. The authors also analyze two other issues not taken into account by the European Court: a) the balancing between the right to know one’s origins and the gamete donors’ right to anonymity; b) whether the donor-conceived children’s right to know would make it mandatory for legal parents to disclose conception procedures. These problems and the importance of the interests at stake induce the authors to argue that the choice to keep using the above mentioned article 8 as yardstick is far from ideal. It appears to be far preferable to deal with these issues while updating the Oviedo Convention or in such a way as to incentivize the enactment of legislation that would be uniform throughout the European Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document