Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Access to Information in German Law in Comparison to Brazilian Law N° 12.527/2011

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Right of Access to Public Information

  • 533 Accesses

Abstract

From the 1970s onwards, a citizen's right to obtain in principle any information available to the state has increasingly become an international democratic standard. The publicness of the state established thereby is an expression of recognition that the people are sovereign and as such entitled to an ongoing control of the exercising of public authority. In addition, the right of access to public information is an effective means to improve a person's knowledge base for his/her personal and professional development and thus to enable the effective use of his/her fundamental rights in a society increasingly based on information. Finally, the publicness of the state is an appropriate and successful tool for preventing state corruption. Our article discusses the present state and development of freedom of information law in Germany with regard to the current legal situation in Bazil.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Schoch 2016, Introduction para 68, 83.

  2. 2.

    Scherzberg, in Fluck et al. (2003), Die verfassungsrechtlichen Grundlagen des Informationszugangs (The Constitutional Basis of Access to Information), para 19, 104.

  3. 3.

    English version: http://www.riksdagen.se/en/Documents-and-laws/ (Accessed on 25 February 2017). The Freedom of the Press Act is one of four fundamental laws which form the Swedish constitution, see Jahn 2009, p. 107.

  4. 4.

    See Chap. 6 regarding the Transparency Act of Rhineland-Palatinate, which entered into force on January 1st 2016.

  5. 5.

    For more information about a recent draft of an Open Data Act on the federal level see Chap. 6.

  6. 6.

    The following remarks refer to the Federal FIA. When the FIA differs considerably from the EIA, the CIA or the provisions at the federal states level, this will be noted.

  7. 7.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 1 para 7.

  8. 8.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 7.

  9. 9.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 1 para 12.

  10. 10.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 61, 71; disagreeing: Jastrow & Schlatmann 2006, Sec. 1 para 10.

  11. 11.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 7, 8.

  12. 12.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 8.

  13. 13.

    Schmitz & Jastrow 2005, p. 988.

  14. 14.

    See, e.g., Sec. 2.1 and 2.4 FIA North Rhine-Westphalia; Sec. 2.1 and 2.2 FIA Thuringia.

  15. 15.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 2 para 6, 8.

  16. 16.

    Kloepfer & von Lewinski 2005, p. 1280; Leopold 2006, p. 594.

  17. 17.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 7.

  18. 18.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 1 para 29, 30.

  19. 19.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 22.

  20. 20.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 255.

  21. 21.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 8.

  22. 22.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 1 para 81.

  23. 23.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 1 para 82, 95.

  24. 24.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 1 para 92.

  25. 25.

    Scheel, in Berger et al. (2006), Sec. 1 para 114; Sellmann & Augsberg 2006, p. 2295.

  26. 26.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 8.

  27. 27.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 298; Matthes 2006, p. 70.

  28. 28.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 287.

  29. 29.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 306, 308.

  30. 30.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 1 para 116.

  31. 31.

    Kugelmann 2005, p. 3611.

  32. 32.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 383.

  33. 33.

    Leopold 2006, p. 594; Burholt 2006, p. 2202; Matthes 2006, p. 70.

  34. 34.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 383; Burholt 2006, p. 2202.

  35. 35.

    Berger, in Berger et al. (2006), before Sec. 1 para 7.

  36. 36.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493 p. 9.

  37. 37.

    Schoch 2016, before Sections 3 to 6 para 18.

  38. 38.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 12 regarding Sec. 4; in case of a gap in protection the Federal Administrative Court wants to revert to such an unwritten exemption clause, see German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), 7 C 3.11 (Judgment of 3 November 2011) para 31.

  39. 39.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 2 BvE 3/07 (Judgment of 17 June 2009) para 122.

  40. 40.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 58.

  41. 41.

    Schoch 2009, p. 2991; Kugelmann 2007, Sec. 3 p. 50.

  42. 42.

    Kloepfer 2006, p. 25; Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 61.

  43. 43.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 60.

  44. 44.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 64.

  45. 45.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 68.

  46. 46.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 67, 151.

  47. 47.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 67, 68; Sitsen 2009, p. 157.

  48. 48.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 74, 79.

  49. 49.

    Schmitz & Jastrow 2005, p. 991; Rossi 2006, Sec. 3 para 9. The Federal Administrative Court’s opinion that authorities have a margin of discretion regarding international relations (German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), 7 C 22/08 (Judgment of 29 October 2009) para 15) is to be rejected.

  50. 50.

    Kugelmann 2005, p. 3611.

  51. 51.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 128.

  52. 52.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 3 para 186.

  53. 53.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 128.

  54. 54.

    Burholt 2006, p. 2203 et seqq.: Sec. 3 No. 1 points (d), (g), No. 3 points (a) and (b), No. 4 and No. 7.

  55. 55.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 66.

  56. 56.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 164.

  57. 57.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 133 et seqq.

  58. 58.

    Scherzberg & Solka, in Fluck et al. (2012), Sec. 3 FIA para 136.

  59. 59.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 13.

  60. 60.

    The provisions of the GDPR are directly applicable in the EU member states. However, it partly leaves room for national legislation, especially via various so-called “opening clauses”. To this end the Federal Government passed a draft act to adjust the Federal Data Protection Act to the GDPR on 1 February 2017. Core of the draft act is the revision of the Federal Data Protection Act, but at the same time it implements EU-Directive No. 2016/680 into German law. The German version of the draft act can be found here http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Gesetzestexte/Entwuerfe/entwurf-datenschutz-grundverordnung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Accessed on 25 February 2017).

  61. 61.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 22. Article 4.1 GDPR defines “personal data” as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.

  62. 62.

    Jastrow & Schlatmann 2006, Sec. 5 para 6.

  63. 63.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 23.

  64. 64.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 33.

  65. 65.

    Fetzer, in Fluck et al. (2005), Sec. 5 FIA para 41; Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 34.

  66. 66.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 35.

  67. 67.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 53.

  68. 68.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 40.

  69. 69.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 13.

  70. 70.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 44.

  71. 71.

    Fetzer, in Fluck et al. (2005), Sec. 5 FIA para 35; Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 45.

  72. 72.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 46.

  73. 73.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 52.

  74. 74.

    Masing 2004, p. 402 et seq.; according to Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 2, 29 criticism is too strict, as Sec. 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 contain criterions for weighing the opposing interests.

  75. 75.

    See, e.g., Sec. 6.1 FIA Berlin; Sec. 9.1 No. 5 FIA Thuringia.

  76. 76.

    See, e.g., Sec. 7 No. 2 FIA Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; Sec. 9.1 point (b) FIA North Rhine-Westphalia.

  77. 77.

    Fetzer, in Fluck et al. 2005, Sec. 5 FIA para 43.

  78. 78.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 67.

  79. 79.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 5 para 70.

  80. 80.

    Resolution recommendation & report of the internal affairs committee, Parliamentary Document 15/5606 p. 6.

  81. 81.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 5 para 16; Mecklenburg & Pöppelmann 2007, Sec. 5 para 23.

  82. 82.

    Likewise Berger, in Berger et al. (2006), Sec. 5 para 19.

  83. 83.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 5 para 17.

  84. 84.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 5 para 31.

  85. 85.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 13, 14.

  86. 86.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 5 para 31.

  87. 87.

    Steinbach & Hochheim 2006, p. 522.

  88. 88.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 7 para 11.

  89. 89.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 14; Leopold 2006, p. 599.

  90. 90.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 14; Matthes 2006, p. 50.

  91. 91.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 14.

  92. 92.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 14; whether the incompetent authority is authorized to forward the application to the competent authority, is discussed controversially; see Schoch 2016, Sec. 7 para 55.

  93. 93.

    Kloepfer & von Lewinski 2005, p. 1285.

  94. 94.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 7 para 29.

  95. 95.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 1 para 22.

  96. 96.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 7 para 24.

  97. 97.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 7 para 88, 90.

  98. 98.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 15.

  99. 99.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 7 para 120.

  100. 100.

    Kloepfer & von Lewinski 2005, p. 1285.

  101. 101.

    Berger, in Berger et al. (2006), Sec. 7 para 7, 22.

  102. 102.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 7 para 170.

  103. 103.

    This results from the enumeration in the explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 15 (“personal data, intellectual property, trade or business secrets”); Schoch 2016, Sec. 8 para 26.

  104. 104.

    Berger, in Berger et al. (2006), Sec. 8 para 3.

  105. 105.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 15.

  106. 106.

    Critical as well: Schoch 2016, Sec. 8 para 55 et seq.: The explanatory memorandum is not confirmed by the wording of the provision.

  107. 107.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 8 para 37.

  108. 108.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 8 para 44, 46.

  109. 109.

    Ziekow & Debus, in Fluck et al. (2007), Sec. 8 FIA para 33.

  110. 110.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 18 et seq.

  111. 111.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 8.

  112. 112.

    Leopold 2006, p. 599; Matthes 2006, p. 55;Jastrow & Schlatmann 2006, Sec. 9 para 11.

  113. 113.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 12; German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), 3 C 46/81 (Judgment of 14 October 1982) para 35.

  114. 114.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 37.

  115. 115.

    Ziekow & Debus, in Fluck et al. (2007), Sec. 9 FIA para 21.

  116. 116.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 47.

  117. 117.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 2623/95, 1 BvR 622/99 (Judgment of 24 January 2001) para 56; Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 47.

  118. 118.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16.

  119. 119.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 48.

  120. 120.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16.

  121. 121.

    Ziekow & Debus, in Fluck et al. (2007), Sec. 9 FIA para 32.

  122. 122.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16.

  123. 123.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16.

  124. 124.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16; Sellmann & Augsberg 2006, p. 2297.

  125. 125.

    Kloepfer & von Lewinski 2005, p. 1286; Matthes 2006, p. 59.

  126. 126.

    German Federal Law Gazette I (BGBl. I) 2006, p. 6.

  127. 127.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 67; Sellmann & Augsberg 2006, p. 2300 et seq.

  128. 128.

    Mecklenburg & Pöppelmann 2007, Sec. 9 para 25; Ziekow & Debus, in Fluck et al. (2007), Sec. 9 FIA para 51; disagreeing: Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 108, 111.

  129. 129.

    Lang, in Sodan & Ziekow (1999), Administrative Procedure Code, Sec. 99 para 20.

  130. 130.

    Kugelmann 2005, p. 3613.

  131. 131.

    Steinbach & Hochheim 2006, p. 523; Schmitz & Jastrow 2005, p. 991.

  132. 132.

    Schmitz & Jastrow 2005, p. 990.

  133. 133.

    For further information on the Federal Commissioner see http://www.bfdi.bund.de/DE/Home/home_node.html (Accessed on 25 February 2017).

  134. 134.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 17.

  135. 135.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 12 para 4.

  136. 136.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 17.

  137. 137.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 12 para 32.

  138. 138.

    Roth, in Berger et al. (2006), Sec. 12 para 17.

  139. 139.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 12 para 41, 44.

  140. 140.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 9 para 64.

  141. 141.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 11 para 22.

  142. 142.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 11 para 24.

  143. 143.

    Berger, in Berger et al. (2006), Sec. 11 para 6.

  144. 144.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 11 para 21.

  145. 145.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16.

  146. 146.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 11 para 28.

  147. 147.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 11 para 45.

  148. 148.

    See Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16.

  149. 149.

    Explanatory memorandum, Parliamentary Document 15/4493, p. 16.

  150. 150.

    Rossi 2006, Sec. 11 para 32.

  151. 151.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 11 para 51.

  152. 152.

    Schoch 2016, Sec. 11 para 58, 59.

  153. 153.

    See draft act, p. 1: https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Gesetzestexte/Entwuerfe/entwurf-open-data-gesetz.pdf?__blob¼publicationFile (Accessed on 25 February 2017)

  154. 154.

    See Gesetz zur F­rderung der elektronischen Verwaltung (5 July 2017), German Federal Law Gazette 2017, p. 2206.

  155. 155.

    Explanatory memorandum, p. 8.

  156. 156.

    See Coalition Agreement, p. 153.

  157. 157.

    Jauch 2013, p. 19.

  158. 158.

    For further information see, e.g., https://transparenzgesetz-nds.de/, http://www.nrw-blickt-durch.de/home/ (Accessed on 25 February 2017).

  159. 159.

    Coalition Agreement (2014), Thüringen gemeinsam voranbringen – demokratisch, sozial, ökologisch. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen den Parteien DIE LINKE, SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN für die 6. Wahlperiode des Thüringer Landtags, http://gruene-thueringen.de/sites/gruene-thueringen.de/files/r2g-koalitionsvertrag-final.pdf, para. 11.4, p. 78 (Accessed on 25 February 2017).

  160. 160.

    For further information on the status of the legislative procedure see the Thuringian government’s statement to the first progress report of the Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information: http://www.parldok.thueringen.de/ParlDok/dokument/55226/stellungnahme-der-landesregierung-zum-1-t%C3%A4tigkeitsbericht-zur-informationsfreiheit-des-th%C3%BCringer-landesbeauftragten-f%C3%BCr-den-datenschutz-und.pdf and http://www.parldok.thueringen.de/ParlDok/dokument/54510/1-t%C3%A4tigkeitsbericht-des-th%C3%BCringer-landesbeauftragten-f%C3%BCr-den-datenschutz-und-die-informationsfreiheit-gem%C3%A4%C3%9F-%C2%A7-12-abs-5-th%C3%BCringer-informationsfreiheitsgesetz.pdf (Accessed on 25 February 2017).

References

  • Berger, S., Roth, J., & Scheel, C. (2006). Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Kommentar. Köln, Germany: Carl Heymanns.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burholt, C. (2006). Die Auswirkungen des Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes auf das Akteneinsichtsrecht in Kartell- und Fusionskontrollverfahren. Betriebsberater (BB), 2201–2207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coalition Agreement Thuringia. (2014). Thüringen gemeinsam voranbringen – demokratisch, sozial, ökologisch. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen den Parteien DIE LINKE, SPD, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN für die 6. Wahlperiode des Thüringer Landtags. http://gruene-thueringen.de/sites/gruene-thueringen.de/files/r2g-koalitionsvertrag-final.pdf

  • Fluck, J., Fischer, K., & Fetzer, T. (Eds.). (2003). Informationsfreiheitsrecht mit Umweltinformations-, Verbraucherinformations‑und Informationsweiterverwendungsrecht, IFG/UIG/VIG/IWG, Kommentar, Band 1. Heidelberg, Germany: Hüthig Jehle Rehm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, D. (2009). Das politische System Schwedens. In W. Ismayr (Ed.), Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas (pp. 107–149). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jastrow, S.-D., & Schlatmann, A. (2006). Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Kommentar. Heidelberg, Germany: R. v. Decker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jauch, O. (2013). Das Hamburgische Transparenzgesetz (HmbTG) – Ein Paradigmenwechsel in der Informationsfreiheit. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl.), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloepfer, M. (2006). Grundprobleme der Gesetzgebung zur Informationszugangsfreiheit. Kommunikation und Recht (K&R), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloepfer, M., & von Lewinski, K. (2005). Das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz des Bundes (IFG). Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl.), 1277–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugelmann, D. (2005). Das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz des Bundes. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 3609–3613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kugelmann, D. (2007). Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Kommentar. Wiesbaden, Germany: Kommunal- und Schul-Verlag Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (2006). Die Kartellbehörden im Angesicht der Informationsfreiheit. Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb (WuW), 592–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masing, J. (2004). Transparente Verwaltung: Konturen eines Informationsverwaltungsrechts. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer ( VVDStRL ), Band 63, 344–468.

  • Matthes, R. (2006). Das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Eine praktische Erläuterung. Berlin: Lexxion Verl.-Ges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mecklenburg, W., & Pöppelmann, B. H. (2007). Informationsfreiheitsgesetz: Gesetzestexte, Kommentierungen, Fallbeispiele, Erläuterungen. Berlin: Dt. Journalisten-Verband.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, M. (2006). Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Handkommentar. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, H., & Jastrow, S.-D. (2005). Das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz des Bundes. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ), 984–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoch, F. (2009). Aktuelle Fragen des Informationsfreiheitsrechts. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 2987–2994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoch, F. (2016). Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. Kommentar (2nd ed.). München, Germany: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellmann, C., & Augsberg, S. (2006). Chancen und Risiken des Bundesinformationsfreiheitsgesetzes – Eine “Gebrauchsanleitung” für (private) Unternehmen. Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (WM), 2293–2301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitsen, M. (2009). Das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz des Bundes. Rechtsprobleme im Zusammenhang mit dem Anspruch auf Informationszugang nach dem IFG. Hamburg, Germany: Kovač.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sodan, H., & Ziekow, J. (1999). Kommentar zur Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, Band II. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbach, R., & Hochheim, D. (2006). Das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz des Bundes unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Auswirkungen im Organisationsbereich des Sozialrechts. Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialrecht (NZS), 517–525.

    Google Scholar 

List of Cases

    German Federal Administrative Court

    • Bundesverwaltungsgericht 14.10.1982, 3 C 46/81, BVerwGE 66, 184.

      Google Scholar 

    German Federal Constitutional Court

    • Bundesverfassungsgericht 24.01.2001, 1 BvR 2623/95, 1 BvR 622/99, BVerfGE 103, 44.

      Google Scholar 

    • Bundesverfassungsgericht 17.06.2009, 2 BvE 3/07, BVerfGE 124, 78.

      Google Scholar 

    • Bundesverwaltungsgericht 29.10.2009, 7 C 22/08, NVwZ 2010, 321.

      Google Scholar 

    • Bundesverwaltungsgericht 03.11.2011, 7 C 3.11, DVBl 2012, 176.

      Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

      Arno Scherzberg

    2. German Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy, Berlin, Germany

      Svenja Solka

    Authors
    1. Arno Scherzberg
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Svenja Solka
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Arno Scherzberg .

    Editor information

    Editors and Affiliations

    1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

      Hermann-Josef Blanke

    2. School of Law, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brazil

      Ricardo Perlingeiro

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

    About this chapter

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this chapter

    Scherzberg, A., Solka, S. (2018). Access to Information in German Law in Comparison to Brazilian Law N° 12.527/2011. In: Blanke, HJ., Perlingeiro, R. (eds) The Right of Access to Public Information. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55554-5_7

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55554-5_7

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55552-1

    • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55554-5

    • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation