Freedom of Information Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law regulating access to federal information
Short title: Freedom of Information Act
Abbreviation: IFG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Administrative law
References : 201-10
Issued on: September 5, 2005
( BGBl. I p. 2722 )
Entry into force on: January 1, 2006
Last change by: Art. 44 VO of June 19, 2020
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 1328, 1333 )
Effective date of the
last change: 		June 27, 2020
(Art. 361 of June 19, 2020)
Weblink: Text of the IFG
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Freedom of Information Act (IFG) regulates the right to access official information vis-à-vis federal authorities and other federal bodies.

General

The law grants every person a legal right to access to official information from federal authorities without any preconditions . A justification based on legal, economic or other interests is not required.

“Official information” is any recording that serves official purposes, regardless of how it is stored, for example documents in conventional files , electronically stored information, drawings, graphics, plans, sound and video recordings.

The claim is directed against federal authorities within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act . If a federal authority makes use of a legal or natural person under private law to fulfill its tasks, it is also obliged to provide information if the information sought is available to the person under private law.

However, the concept of freedom of information is ambiguous and therefore potentially misleading. In connection with the present law, freedom of information does not describe the realization of the fundamental right associated with the constitutional freedom of expression to obtain information unhindered from generally accessible sources ( Art. 5, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Basic Law ). The terms “ access to information ”, “transparency” (e.g. in Hamburg) or “ inspection of files ” (as in Brandenburg) would therefore be more precise .

The further use of the information is not regulated in this Act, but in the Information Further Use Act.

Limitations and Exceptions

Due to the principle formulated in § 1, the validity for the federal states is excluded. Protective provisions for the interests of a federal state, however, are also not formulated. Indirectly, this includes freedom of information on state issues to the extent that a federal authority (Section 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1) can provide information about this (at all, based on the actual application of state law). Corresponding state laws have not been passed in all federal states. Information registers (such as in the state of Bremen) or the right to inspect files (such as in the state of Brandenburg) also only provide information about documented processes.

The law contains numerous exceptions which can restrict or completely deny the right to access information.

The freedom of information relates exclusively to completed documented processes, i.e. it does not give access to ongoing planning (Section 3 Protection of special public concerns, Section 4 Protection of the official decision-making process).

The freedom of information also excludes personal data (Section 5) and company-related data (Section 6). Access to personal data may only be granted if the applicant's interest in information outweighs the legitimate interests of the person concerned or the person concerned has consented. There is no right to information regarding the contents of personnel files and personnel management systems. Information on the names and business addresses of employees should, however, be made accessible. The same applies to information on appraisers and experts .

There is an area exception for the Federal Intelligence Service and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Neither are they obliged to provide information, as is the Federal Audit Office, which was excluded from the scope of the law in 2013 through an amendment to the Federal Budget Code.

For years, the Bundestag refused to publish drafts of the Scientific Services of the German Bundestag in accordance with the IFG. A ruling by the Federal Administrative Court in 2015 a campaign of organizations FragDenStaat.de and Abgeordnetenwatch.de changed this. The organizations had published a list of 3,800 Bundestag reports and users had requested more than 2,000 reports about the IFG. The Council of Elders of the Bundestag decided on February 18, 2016 to publish all requested reports and, in future, all new reports on the Bundestag website.

Procedure

In principle, the authority grants access to information only on request, namely "immediately" by providing information, granting access to files or "in any other way", e.g. B. by listening to a sound recording or researching a database. The request for this can be made in an informal letter, but also verbally or by telephone. The authority can levy fees and expenses of up to € 500. The rules of the Administrative Procedure Act apply to the fulfillment of the application. The rejection of the application is an administrative act that can be contested with an objection and an action for obligation .

The move away from official secrecy means that requests for information from third parties who are not involved in administrative proceedings cannot simply be rejected across the board in the future. Instead, access to the coveted information must be granted, unless in individual cases valuable third-party interests that are worthy of protection stand in the way of access to the information. The authority must examine and explain this on a case-by-case basis.

Publication requirements

Irrespective of specific requests for information access, the federal authorities will in future have to make certain information of a general nature public ex officio . These are directories from which the existing collections of information and information purposes can be identified, organizational plans and file plans. This information is to be published on the Internet.

history

Despite the extensive catalog of exceptions, since January 1, 2006, the principle that granting access to official information is the rule and denying access is the exception. This is a paradigm shift ; Previously, the principle was that official information is generally not public, unless there is a special statutory right to information.

In December 2008, on the initiative of the then Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer, an attempt was made to amend the law to exclude general inspection of files of the banking supervision from the right to access information.

During the official evaluation of the law in 2012, some weaknesses in the law emerged, including unclear facts and a lack of options to weigh up exceptions against the public interest. As the only change so far, however, in 2013 the word “official acts” was replaced by the words “individually attributable public services” as part of the structural reform of the fee law in § 10.

Federal Commissioner for Freedom of Information

Anyone can call the Federal Commissioner for Freedom of Information if they consider their right to access information under this law to have been violated. The task of the Freedom of Information Commissioner is carried out by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection . The powers of the Federal Commissioner for Freedom of Information partly correspond to those of the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection under the Federal Data Protection Act . In the context of freedom of information, the Federal Commissioner can only complain about misconduct by a public body, but not order the release of information. The appeal to the agent does not prevent any period of appeal .

Legislative process and history

Before the Federal Freedom of Information Act, which came into force on January 1, 2006, there was no general right of citizens to inspect official documents at federal level.

There were a large number of individual regulations, such as access rights to registers and archives as well as participant rights in procedural law. In procedural law, the principle applies that in order to assert or defend legal interests of those involved in the proceedings, the authority must allow those involved to inspect the files relating to the proceedings, with the exception of the decision on drafts for decisions and the work on their immediate preparation as well as the proper ones The fulfillment of the authority's tasks is impaired or the disclosure of the content of the files would be detrimental to the welfare of the federal government or a state, or if the processes are kept secret under a law or their nature, namely because of the legitimate interests of those involved or third parties must be ( § 29 VwVfG ).

For a long time, in addition to a series of individual regulations to inspect certain registers (e.g. the land register in the event of a legitimate interest), the right of inspection of those involved in an administrative procedure and area-specific rights of information for those affected according to data protection law - no general right of citizens to inspect official documents.

A general right of inspection for everyone has existed since 1994 only for environmental information based on a European Community directive.

While freedom of information laws came into force in Brandenburg in 1998, in Berlin in 1999, in Schleswig-Holstein in 2000 and in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2002, the road to a federal freedom of information law was a long one.

A draft for an IFG was submitted by the opposition faction Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen as early as 1997 under the black-yellow coalition , in 1998 the creation of an IFG was laid down in the coalition agreement of the red-green coalition for the 14th legislative period, and a corresponding draft law also by prepared by the Federal Government (IFG RefE), but due to various reservations on the part of the ministerial bureaucracy, a bill was ultimately not introduced. An IFG was also agreed in the coalition agreement of the red-green coalition for the 15th legislative period, but its implementation failed again due to the resistance of the ministerial bureaucracy. After a professors' draft for an IFG (IFG-ProfE) had already been submitted in 2002, a draft law was now also submitted by non-governmental organizations on April 2, 2004 in Berlin . Although the federal government stated that it still insisted on introducing an IFG into the Bundestag, the initiative finally came from the government coalition groups , which on December 14, 2004 introduced a draft law from the middle of the Bundestag.

After the minimum period of three days, which is unusual in state practice, the first discussion on the draft law took place on December 17, 2004, after which the draft was referred to the responsible interior committee . A first expert hearing on the draft took place on March 14, 2005; On June 1, 2005, the Interior Committee finally discussed the draft and submitted its report and the recommendation for a resolution to the Bundestag, in which it recommended that the draft law be adopted in the committee version. The second and third deliberations took place in the 179th session of the Bundestag on June 3, 2005. The bill was adopted by a large majority in the second consultation and passed in the final vote with the votes of the coalition against the votes of the CDU / CSU and with abstention from the FDP and the non- attached Petra Pau, PDS, pursuant to Article 42, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law .

The legislative resolution for the objection law was forwarded to the Bundesrat in accordance with Article 77 (1) of the Basic Law, which voted on July 8, 2005, the last day of the three-week period to appeal to the mediation committee , on a corresponding recommendation from its committees to appeal. If the mediation committee had been convened, the IFG would almost certainly have fallen victim to the dissolution of the 15th and the constitution of the 16th German Bundestag on October 18, 2005 as a result of the Federal Chancellor's vote of confidence on July 1, 2005 , but that came from the FDP operated The black and yellow federal states of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saxony-Anhalt also abstained . The majority of votes required to appeal in accordance with Article 52, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 of the Basic Law, Section 31 of the GOBR was not achieved. Issued on September 13th and announced on September 13th, 2005 in the Federal Law Gazette.

One topic of discussion was the question of how far official secrecy and above all the particularly strong data protection in Germany can and may go in the EU and its member states against the background of freedom of information.

Practical application and judicial process

The first cases caused criticism because of restrictive interpretation of the law, delaying tactics and disproportionately high fees:

The social welfare association Tacheles filed its first lawsuit in mid-April 2006 at the Düsseldorf Social Court, following the publication of the implementation instructions and recommendations for action on unemployment benefits by the Federal Employment Agency (BA) . According to the BA, the documents are available on the intranet, but the publication requested on January 2, 2006 was repeatedly delayed, citing technical problems and internal coordination difficulties. On July 13, 2006, the unemployment initiative and the Federal Employment Agency agreed in a settlement before the Social Court that the coveted information would now be published on the Internet by the Federal Employment Agency.

From a small inquiry from the Greens in February 2009, it emerged that in 2008, with a slightly higher number of applications than in the previous year, more than twice as many were rejected. Manfred Redelfs, Head of Research at Greenpeace Germany, stated in 2010 that a culture of transparency had not yet established itself. When it comes to queries that are sensitive to them, the authorities tended to initially reject requests for information. The ball then lies with the courts, which, in case of doubt, would have to decide whether a claim to information was justified or not. So the authorities are shifting responsibility from themselves. That is humanly understandable, but not in the sense of an open society and a transparent administration.

With its judgment of November 3, 2011, the Federal Administrative Court decided in the last instance that the Freedom of Information Act also applies to all activities of the Federal Ministries; According to this landmark ruling by the Federal Administrative Court, a Federal Ministry may no longer reject the application for access to official information - for example in-house documents relating to a legislative procedure or statements to the Petitions Committee - on the grounds that the documents concern government activities.

According to the 3rd activity report on freedom of information, which was published by the then Federal Data Protection Commissioner Peter Schaar , 3,280 applications were made in 2011 and 1,557 in 2010 under the Freedom of Information Act. According to statistics from the Federal Ministry of the Interior , 9,325 applications were submitted in 2015. The reasons for the strong increase were mass inquiries to the division of the Federal Ministry of Finance from law firms and the simplified application for citizens through the online tool FragDenStaat.de . According to statistics from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, the number of annual applications to federal authorities rose to 12,198 by 2017.

In October 2016, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that two journalists had defended themselves against a cost calculation by the Federal Ministry of the Interior for around 15,000 euros. It was about access to files of German Olympic sports associations and sports funding by the federal government. Both lower courts had also ruled against the ministry. The Federal Administrative Court ruled that a fee of 500 euros was justified; the Federal Ministry of the Interior had previously announced that the request had to be divided into 31 individual inquiries of 500 euros each plus expenses, the Federal Administrative Court saw this differently. (BVerwG 7 C 6.15 of October 20, 2016). The fees for copies were also rejected as unfounded, as there was insufficient authorization.

In March 2019, the Frankfurt am Main Administrative Court ruled on a lawsuit from BuzzFeed News that the federally owned Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau ( KfW ) is also an authority and falls under the IFG. KfW had previously regularly rejected IFG applications on the grounds that it was a private bank.

In the case law database of the State Commissioner for File Inspection Brandenburg there are around 500 judgments on the freedom of information laws of the federal and state governments.

State regulations

So far, thirteen federal states have each passed their own freedom of information laws for their area of ​​responsibility. In Bavaria , Lower Saxony and Saxony , however, there is no such law. Hamburg, Bremen and Rhineland-Palatinate have transparency laws which, in addition to access to information on request, also regulate the active publication of information by bodies obliged to provide information.

literature

Essays

  • Katharina Beckemper : The new federal freedom of information law. In: State and local government. 2006, pp. 300-302.
  • Henning Berger, Benjamin Schirmer: Freedom of information in a balancing act. The right balance between access to information and protection of interests . In: Publicus. 3, 2010, pp. 20-23, online (HTML) .
  • Tobias Bräutigam: The German Freedom of Information Act from a comparative law perspective. In: German administrative gazette. 2006, pp. 950-957.
  • Thomas Engelien-Schulz: Right of access to information - basics of the "Law regulating access to federal information". In: Bundeswehrverwaltung. 2006, pp. 25-32.
  • Jürgen Fluck, Stefanie Merenyi: Access to official information - The case law on the environmental information laws and the freedom of information laws of the federal and state governments 2003-2005 . In: Administrative Archives. 2006, pp. 381-409.
  • Jürgen Fluck: Administrative transparency through freedom of information - information claims according to the environmental information, consumer information and freedom of information laws . In: German administrative gazette. 2006, pp. 1406-1415.
  • Torsten Hartleb: The IFG claim foiled by the authorities . In: New journal for administrative law. 2009, pp. 825-827.
  • Michael Kloepfer , Kai von Lewinski : The Federal Freedom of Information Act (IFG). In: German administrative gazette. 2005, pp. 1277-1288.
  • Dieter Kugelmann : The Federal Freedom of Information Act . In: NJW. 2005, pp. 3609-3613.
  • Horst Hopf: The new federal freedom of information law. In: Law in office. 2006, pp. 1-11.
  • Stephan Lehnstaedt , Bastian Stemmer: inspection of files. The Freedom of Information Act and the Historians, Zeitschrift fuer Geschichtswwissenschaft 60: 6 (2012), pp. 493-512.
  • Christian Mensching: The Federal Freedom of Information Act. In: Verwaltungsrundschau. 2006, pp. 1-8.
  • Henrik Schmitz: Barely used transparency. Journalists and Freedom of Information Laws. In: epd media. No. 12/2006, pp. 3-81.
  • Heribert Schmitz, Serge-Daniel Jastrow: The Federal Freedom of Information Act. In: New journal for administrative law . 2005, pp. 984-995.
  • Arne Semsrott : Freedom of Information - More Transparency for More Democracy.  Otto Brenner Foundation, Berlin 2016
  • Bettina Sokol : Freedom of information in the federal government: a hesitant first step. In: Computer and Law. 2005, pp. 835-840.
  • Philipp Wendt: Farewell to official secrecy: The Federal Freedom of Information Act. In: Lawyer Gazette. 2005, pp. 702-704.

Books

  • Matthias Rossi: Freedom of access to information and constitutional law. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2004, ISBN 3-428-11593-7 .
  • Robert Matthes: The Freedom of Information Act - A Practical Explanation. Lexxion Verlag, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-939804-00-2 .
  • Michael Sitsen: The Federal Freedom of Information Act. Legal problems in connection with the right to access information according to the IFG . Publishing house Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 2009, ISBN 978-3-8300-4304-1 .
  • Carola Haas: Private individuals as those obliged to provide information according to the environmental information and freedom of information laws . Publishing house Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 2013, ISBN 978-3-8300-6897-6 .
  • Roland Hartmannsberger: Information requirements . In: Redeker / Uechtritz (Hrsg.): Kölner Handbuch Verwaltungsverfahren . Carl Heymanns Verlag, 3rd edition 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28687-1

Comments

  • Sven Berger, Jürgen Roth, Christoph Partsch, Christopher Scheel: Freedom of Information Act. Law regulating access to federal information (IFG). Comment . Carl Heymanns, Cologne / Berlin / Munich 2nd edition 2013, ISBN 978-3-452-27779-4 .
  • Stefan Brink , Sven Polenz, Henning Blatt: Freedom of Information Act: IFG . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-71037-7 .
  • Jürgen Fluck , Andreas Theuer (Hrsg.): Freedom of information law with environmental information and consumer information law IFG / UIG / VIG / IWG. Comment. EU, federal and state regulations, international law, case law . Loose-leaf work in 2 folders, status: November 24th, 2008 update. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2002–2008, ISBN 978-3-8114-9270-7 .
  • Serge-Daniel Jastrow, Arne Schlatmann : Freedom of Information Act. Comment . R. v. Decker, Heidelberg / Munich / Landsberg / Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-7685-0545-6 .
  • Matthias Rossi: Freedom of Information Act. Hand comment . Nomos, Baden-Baden 2006, ISBN 3-8329-1418-8 .
  • Friedrich Schoch : Freedom of Information Act. Comment . CH Beck, Munich 2nd edition 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-62962-4 .

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Tania Röttger: At half past twelve in the Bundestag. In: Correctiv. Retrieved February 2, 2019 .
  2. ↑ Bundestag report: Freedom of information does not apply to the Bundestag
  3. ↑ Bundestag does not have to disclose "UFO documents" and "Guttenberg documents" - 26/13 ( memento of November 25, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) berlin.de
  4. ↑ netzpolitik.org: The work of the Scientific Service must be accessible according to the Freedom of Information Act .
  5. ↑ zeit.de: Bundestag must grant access to Guttenberg documents .
  6. ↑ #FragDenBundestag successful: Bundestag opens its filing cabinets! In: netzpolitik.org. Retrieved February 2, 2019 .
  7. ↑ a b Bundestag disputes costs for freedom of information heise online
  8. ^ Report in ( Memento of February 9, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Contrasts on the proposed law amendment of February 5, 2009.
  9. ↑ Bundesdrucksache 827/1/08: Recommendations of the committees ( Memento of September 15, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 30 kB) of December 19, 2008 on the amendment of the Freedom of Information Act
  10. ↑ Report "Freedom of information: glasses only for a fee" by Christina Hebel in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of March 2, 2009 on the Bavarian project and a balance sheet three years after the federal law came into force
  11. ↑ Evaluation of the law regulating access to federal information (Freedom of Information Act - IFG). In: German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer. Retrieved February 2, 2019 .
  12. ↑ File Inspection and Information Access Act (AIG) ( Memento of the original dated February 21, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of March 10, 1998 (GVBl.Bbg I, p. 46), entered into force on March 11, 1998 (§ 12).  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.datenschutz-berlin.de
  13. ↑ Law for the Promotion of Freedom of Information in the State of Berlin (Berlin Freedom of Information Act - IFG) ( Memento of the original dated September 3, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 70 kB) of October 15, 1999 (GVBl. Berlin 1999, No. 45, p. 561), entered into force on October 16, 1999 (Section 23).  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de
  14. ↑ Law on Freedom of Access to Information for the State of Schleswig-Holstein (Freedom of Information Act for the State of Schleswig-Holstein - IFG-SH) ( Memento of the original from November 14, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and still Not checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of February 9, 2000 (GVOBl. Schl.-H. 2000, p. 166), entered into force on February 10, 2000 (§ 18). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.datenschutzzentrum.de
  15. ↑ Law on the freedom of access to information for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (Freedom of Information Act North Rhine-Westphalia - IFG NRW) of November 27, 2001 (GVBl. NRW 2001, p. 806), entered into force on January 1, 2002 (§ 14).
  16. ↑ BT-Drs . 13/8432 of August 27, 1997 (IFG draft of the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen parliamentary group). ( PDF ; 744 kB)
  17. ↑ See coalition agreement between the SPD and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen, Bonn, from October 20, 1998, point IX, no. 13 ( Memento of the original from April 1, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.oktober1998.spd-parteitag.de
  18. ↑ See answer of the Federal Government ( BT-Drs. 14/3909 of July 21, 2000 (PDF; 83 kB), answer to question no. 16) to a small question from the CDU / CSU parliamentary group ( BT-Drs. 14/3816 of July 4, 2000 ; PDF; 53 kB).
  19. ↑ See answer of the Federal Government ( BT-Drs. 14/9147 of May 22, 2002 ; PDF; 211 kB) to a small question from the MPs Ulla Jelpke and the PDS parliamentary group ( BT-Drs. 14/8987 of May 7, 2002 ; PDF; 159 kB).
  20. ↑ See coalition agreement between the SPD and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen, Berlin, from October 16, 2002 , point VIII. (PDF; 1.2 MB)
  21. ↑ See only BT plenary minutes 15/149 of December 17, 2004 (PDF; 1.1 MB): Norbert Geis , p. 13946 (B); Beatrix Philipp , pp. 13948 (D), 13949 (A); Gisela Piltz , p. 13953 (B, C); Petra Pau , p. 13960 (C).
  22. ↑ Schoch, Friedrich / Kloepfer, Michael (ed.): Freedom of Information Act (IFG-ProfE). Draft of a Freedom of Information Act for the Federal Republic of Germany , Berlin 2002; also Schoch, Friedrich: Freedom of information law for the Federal Republic of Germany. In: Die Verwaltung 2002, pp. 149–175.
  23. ↑ Joint draft ( Memento of the original dated February 23, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 126 kB) from Netzwerk Recherche , German Association of Journalists , German Union of Journalists , Humanist Union , Transparency International Germany; see. also press release ( memento of the original of May 8, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of the Working Group of the Information Commissioners of Germany (AGID) and the data protection officers of the federal government and the states of Lower Saxony and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania of April 2, 2004. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.transparency.de @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.datenschutzzentrum.de
  24. ↑ See answer of the Federal Government ( BT-Drs. 15/3585 of July 14, 2004 (PDF; 220 kB), answer to question no. 1) to the minor question of the parliamentary group of the FDP ( BT-Drs. 15/3521 of June 30, 2004 ; PDF; 184 kB).
  25. ↑ BT-Drs. 15/4493 of December 14, 2004 (IFG draft of the SPD and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen parliamentary groups; PDF; 389 kB).
  26. ↑ Cf. § 78 Paragraph 5 GOBT ; on state practice cf. Gisela Piltz, BT plenary minutes 15/149 of December 17, 2004, p. 13953 (A).
  27. ↑ See BT Vice-President Antje Vollmer , BT plenary protocol 15/149 of December 17, 2004, p. 13967 (C).
  28. ↑ For the expert opinions in advance, see A-Drs. 15 (4) 196 to 15 (4) 196h  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ; For the minutes of the 58th meeting of the Interior Committee on March 14, 2005 see Minutes No. 15/58  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.bundestag.de  @1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.bundestag.de  
  29. ↑ See BT-Drs. 15/5606 of June 1, 2005 (PDF; 323 kB).
  30. ↑ See BT Vice President Norbert Lammert , BT plenary minutes 15/179 of June 3, 2005, p. 16959 (A, B) (PDF; 1.1 MB).
  31. ↑ counseling process 450/05: law regulating access to information of the federation (Freedom of Information Act - IFG). In: Federal Council. June 17, 2005, accessed April 28, 2020 .
  32. ↑ BR-Drucksache 450/1/05 Committee recommendation. In: Federal Council. June 27, 2005, accessed April 28, 2020 .
  33. ↑ See press release of the federal party FDP from July 8, 2005.
  34. ↑ See BR plenary minutes of the 813th meeting of July 8, 2005 (Item 15) ( Memento of January 30, 2012 in the Internet Archive ), p. 278 (A, B).
  35. ↑ Law regulating access to federal information (Freedom of Information Act - IFG) of 5 September 2005 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2722 ).
  36. ↑ Freedom of information: Foreign Office scares with hefty fees heise online
  37. ↑ Contracts for truck tolls remain a secret heise online
  38. ^ Toll contract: lawsuit rejected in the first instance - arduous path to freedom of information . MEP's press release dated June 13, 2008.
  39. ↑ Anonymized judgment of the Berlin Administrative Court ( Memento from January 31, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF)
  40. ↑ With copyright against freedom of information heise online
  41. ↑ The Ministry of the Interior sticks to high fees for accessing files, heise online
  42. ↑ Social welfare association takes legal action on the basis of the freedom of information law heise online
  43. ↑ Stiftung Warentest: Employment agency must disclose internals test.de, July 13, 2006 (accessed online: January 2, 2013)
  44. ↑ Small request from the Greens February 2009 (PDF; 281 kB)
  45. ↑ Federal authorities are handling freedom of information increasingly restrictively - report to heise online
  46. ↑ evangelisch.de
  47. ↑ Federal Administrative Court - decisions (BVerwG 7 C 4.11, judgment of November 3, 2011)
  48. ↑ 3rd Activity Report on Freedom of Information , accessed on July 22, 2012 (pdf).
  49. ↑ Heise.de article "More and more citizens are watching the bureaucrats on the fingers" by Helmut Lorscheid , on April 25, 2012, accessed on July 22, 2012.
  50. ↑ IFG applications 2015. (No longer available online.) Federal Ministry of the Interior, archived from the original on May 14, 2016 ; accessed on February 18, 2017 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  51. ↑ New record for freedom of information: Almost 10,000 inquiries to ministries in 2015 | netzpolitik.org. Retrieved February 18, 2017 .
  52. ↑ IFG statistics 2017. In: Federal Ministry of the Interior, for Building and Home. Retrieved April 6, 2019 .
  53. ↑ Federal Administrative Court: Authorities have been charging illegal fees for information for ten years • FragDenStaat.de Blog. Retrieved February 18, 2017 .
  54. ↑ Marcus Engert: Administrative court decides after BuzzFeed lawsuit: KfW is an authority and falls under the IFG. Retrieved June 14, 2019 .