When it was introduced in 2006, the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) followed a simple principle. Anyone can request access to files without having to justify their interest. The decision of July 2nd turns that around. In the future, only natural persons with a “legitimate interest” should receive information, and only if they do not already get the information through other regulations. What was once a general civil right is now at the discretion of the administration.
Read more after the ad
Media and NGOs will be left out in the future
The restriction to natural persons directly affects editors, publishers and NGOs, because as legal entities they would no longer be eligible to apply. The German Association of Journalists (DJV) draws the obvious conclusion from this and warns that media companies will then no longer be able to submit IFG inquiries.
Formally, this could be avoided if the editor asks in her own name and the NGO employee appears as a private person. In practice, however, such a construction shifts the risk from the institution to the individual. Who files a lawsuit against a rejection and who pays if the procedure fails? That would remain open. The change would be vital for FragDenStaat, LobbyControl, MPs Watch and other organizations. If the government implements its plans, this model will no longer apply. FragDenStaat leader Arne Semsrott draws the conclusion in an interview with heise online: Once the legal process is blocked, FragDenStaat will become the “new WikiLeaks”.
“Legitimate interest”: Who else can ask?
So far, the authority has to explain why it is refusing; After the reform, the applicant would have to justify why he is asking in the first place. This is structurally unusable for investigative research. Anyone investigating a suspicion has difficulty disclosing the context of their research without endangering sources. This poses a structural threat to press freedom in Germany.
This gives the administration a reason for rejection that can hardly be challenged: the interest is there, but not “justified”. The DJV is already criticizing the authorities for arbitrarily restricting requests for information. A vague legal term such as “legitimate interest” does not limit this practice – it gives it a legal basis.
Deterrence by notice of fees
Read more after the ad
An IFG request can cost up to 500 euros today. In the future, the fees should be based on the cost-coverage principle, and those who allocate the actual processing effort will quickly end up in the four-digit range. For freelance journalists and small editorial teams, this is not just a theoretical problem. The uncertainty about the level of fees could be a deterrent. Because if you can’t estimate whether a request costs 80 or 1400 euros, if in doubt you won’t even ask.
Blackened names, invisible responsibility
In the future, government employees will be completely unrecognizable in documents. This is sold as data protection, but in practice it primarily acts as protection against attribution.
Names in official documents show who was involved in a decision or where conflicts of interest existed. FragDenStaat therefore warns of an increasing risk of corruption.
Press law does not replace the IFG
The decision suggests that anyone who has a right to information under press law can do without the IFG. That is not the case. Press law requirements are narrower, more dependent on the respective authority and tailored to current reporting – good for quick inquiries, unsuitable for systematic, file-based research over months.
The German Association of Journalists (DJV) has been calling for an independent federal right to information for the media for years, precisely because press law alone is not enough. The fact that the IFG for media companies is now to be reduced does not fit with this: the broader of the two paths is being deleted. The DJV flatly calls this an “abolition of freedom of information” and calls on MPs not to agree. And the protest is not limited to the associations. A petition that FragDenStaat addressed to the SPD parliamentary group received over 150,000 signatures in the first 24 hours (as of July 4th, 12 p.m.).
Read also
(v.a.z.a.)
