Regulations for P articipation by Freedom of Information L aw in Slovakia

1. Regulations for Participation by Freedom of Information Law in Slovakia Viktoria Mlynarcikova Contact: viktoria@osf.sk Open Society Foundation, Slovakia

2. history of the idea and campaigning • Motivation based on raising problems • Citizens´initiative • Legislation Process

3. Motivation – problems arising • Ineffective communication between citizens and state • Negative experiences with information provision by state and self-government bodies • Fight against corruption and clientelism • Essential condition of an effective functioning of legal state = transparency + responsibility • Preparation for decentralization of power, return of administration of public matters to the citizen, or, initially, at least bringing it closer to the citizen

4. Citizens‘ Initiative • 1999 emergence of Civic Initiative for A Good Law „What’s not classified, is public“ • Support by 120 organizations representing over 100 000 citizens • Aim: Implementation of legislative standards applied in other democracies based on 9 principles

5. 9 principles 1. Principle of maximum disclosure (i.e. ´Anything that is not secret shall be deemed to be public´) 2. In addition to public authorities and local government bodies, entities obliged must also be those whose activities are financed by public money 3. Provisions on information which cannot be disclosed to the public cannot be vague and their interpretation must be restrictive. 4. Time limits must be reasonable and cannot be unreasonably extended. 5. Must of effective and prompt remedies available to citizens when decisions on accessibility of information are made. 6. Must of effective sanctions in place imposed on those who breach the law. 7. Providing active access to information will be to the benefit not only of citizens, but it will make the process of providing information on frequently asked questions even more effective. 8. Reasonable fee for disclosure. Fee should only cover direct costs incurred in connection with the provision of information. 9. The Act should repeal the Freedom of Information Act on the Environment No. 171/1998, which is currently in force. The new Act should be much more effective.

6. Legislation Process and Activities of the Initiative Initiative Role in Creation of the Act: • Drafts: 3 drafts of the act: 2 MPs and governmental (prepared by the Ministry of Justice SR) • An effort to reach an agreement and produce a single draft – unsuccessful • Own draft proposal – submitted and prezented by an MP • Monitoring of the debate process

7. Role of the Initiative within the Parliament/President and Supportive Actions • Participation in all Parliamentary Committees and presentation of position by civic groups and legal experts of the Initiative • Continuous analysis of draft amendments and their generation • Lobbying – meeting with almost ALL MPs (150) • Lobbying the President (he had objections, but eventually signed)

8. Supportive Actions • Generation of postcards sent by the public to the Chairman of the Parliament (he received several thousands of those, plus over 2000 by e-mail) • Campaigning – a public gathering at the entrance tot he Parliament – T-shirts with the name of the campaign ‘What’s not classified, is public‘

9. FOIA in Slovakia Today • Repeatedly amended, but this involved technical amendments without any major effect on the content of the law • The law functions relatively well, particularly at the state level; yet a number of precedents emerged, such as de-classification and/or refusal to de-classify content of agreements between the state and private companies on sales of public property / enterprises (Slovak Telecom) • Problem: continuous attempts to amend, esp. by local governments • Problem of the local governments: Decentralization gave them decision-making power concerning a significant amount of finance + EU funds – an attempt to reduce transparency of decision-making on division of funds

10. Civil Society Today and the Law • Several NGO dealing with FOIA issues – all partly (e.g. representing citizens in matters concerning the law; monitoring of party spending by applying FOIA) • OSF with partners – INFOact competition – only overall monitoring of the competition based on evaluation of public nominations and provision of information, with its media partners and public debate. • OSF coordinates a permanent group dealing with potential threats, aiming to operationally respond to any legislative changes. This group also acts as a platform for exchange of know-how. Its members are significant contributors to implementation of non-grant activities.

11. Thank you for your attention.