The plans from the coalition committee hit a core of democratic control. Since 2006, the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) has generally granted access to official information at the federal level without applicants having to prove a particular interest. It is precisely this principle that should now be restricted. In the future, a right to information should only apply to natural persons who demonstrate a legitimate interest and cannot obtain the information through other legal channels. The circle of those eligible to apply should also be narrowed down.
The Conference of Freedom of Information Commissioners in Germany (IFK) sees this line as a fundamental attack on the IFG. The announced reform comes “in fact close to abolishing the right to freedom of information at the federal level,” says the statement. The criticism of the planned “legitimate interest” is particularly sharp: moving away from unconditional access to information would amount to a “general attack on freedom of information”.
From the right to transparency to the obligation to provide reasons
The planned conversion would reverse the logic of the IFG. Until now, the authority has had to justify why information may not be released in exceptional cases, for example due to security interests, personal data or ongoing proceedings. In the future, applicants would first have to explain why they want to receive information in the first place.
That sounds like a procedural detail, but it would have significant consequences. Citizens, journalists, civil society organizations and companies could no longer demand information simply because government actions should be understandable. Anyone who wants to research, control or clarify grievances would have to disclose and justify their interest. This would be an additional hurdle for investigative work.
The planned restriction to natural persons residing in Germany who are German or Union citizens would also change the character of the law. A general right to transparency would become a narrower right of access for certain groups.
Security as a blanket argument
The IFK is particularly critical of the proposed area exceptions. Critical infrastructure and scientific research should be able to be excluded from the scope of application across the board. So far, the IFG already allows security-relevant information to be protected in individual cases. This is precisely where its balance lies: openness is the principle, secrecy must be justified.
The IFK therefore sees no need to seal off entire areas as a precautionary measure. The reference to security is used as a pretext for “incomprehensible and unjustifiable restrictions on freedom of information”. State resilience does not come about through comprehensive secrecy, but rather through comprehensible decisions, clear exceptions and controllable procedures.
More bureaucracy instead of simpler procedures
The federal government presents the reform as a contribution to greater comprehensibility and transparency. From the IFK’s point of view, the opposite is likely to happen. In the future, authorities would have to check additional questions for every application: Is the person eligible to apply? Is there a legitimate interest? Is there another right to information? What fees must be charged?
This would not only place a greater burden on applicants, but also on administration. Every test step would have to be documented, especially if higher fees are planned. The reform could therefore create the very bureaucracy that it is supposed to reduce.
Transparency as a democratic infrastructure
The IFK is an association of officers for access to files, freedom of information and transparency of the federal government and those states in which corresponding laws exist. Its goal is to promote and further develop access to information.
Your appeal is therefore not directed against reforms per se. Modern transparency laws in several federal states show that freedom of information can be further developed: with proactive publication, clear procedures and understandable rules. The federal government is now faced with the question of whether it will really modernize the IFG – or whether it will narrow a proven control law so much that transparency becomes the exception.