Abstract
One of the key principles of (the Czech Republic as) a democratic state (and also of its good governance) is the principle of transparency (freedom of information). Based on the above (and on the Article 17 of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms), this chapter presents, interprets, analyzes and evaluates both the legal regulation and the state (public administration) practice of the access to information in the Czech Republic (with particular emphasis on beneficiaries of access to information, entities bound by law, the request for access, the response / answer and the timeframes for responding / answering, providing public information ex officio as well as excepted information and fees and costs).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
English translations of the Constitution of the Czech Republic as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as the further components of the Czech Constitution can be found at https://www.usoud.cz/en/legal-basis/.
- 2.
For more data and information about the Czech Republic, see, for example, http://www.oecd.org/czech/ or http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Czech%20Republic.
- 3.
Compare also Recommendation No. R (98) 12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Supervision of Local Authorities’ Action stating i.a. that transparency is the best guarantee that public authorities carry out their acts in the interests of the community, that it is an essential prerequisite for effective political supervision by citizens and that, therefore, strengthening it allows the reduction of other forms of supervision.
- 4.
For example, see decision of Czech Constitutional Court I. ÚS 3930/14, 16th June 2015.
- 5.
Decision of Supreme Administrative Court 2 Ans 13/2012-14, 15th November 2012.
- 6.
In decision of Supreme Administrative Court 8 As 114/2013-36, 4th August 2014.
- 7.
See Korbel, F. et al., pp. 26–29; Furek, A., Rothanzl, L., Jírovec T., p. 32.
- 8.
Decision of Supreme Administrative Court 2 Ans 4/2009-93, 6th October 2009.
- 9.
See decision of Regional Court in Brno 62 A 26/2012-129, 7th June 2013, or decision of Supreme Administrative Court 5 As 57/2013-16, 27th September 2017.
- 10.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 1 Ans 5/2010-172, 16th December 2010.
- 11.
See decision of Czech Constitutional Court I. ÚS 3930/14, 16 June 2015. The court stated: “Procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the information seeker must be interpreted in such a way that they are effective in practice. It cannot be interpreted in a way that denies protection without there being any good reason”.
- 12.
The legal regulations and requirements applicable to access to information on the environment take a different approach and assume that, if a request is submitted to an otherwise obligated entity and that entity does not have the requested information available and currently, under special legislation, doesn’t have the obligation to retain, hold or have such information, then, the respective entity will inform the requesting party, without undue delay (within 15 days of receipt) of the request that the requested information cannot therefore be provided. If the addressed and otherwise obligated entity is aware of another entity which does, in fact, have or retains the requested information, then the first entity will forward to this other entity the submitted request and do so within the time limits noted in the first sentence above, and it shall so inform the requesting party.
- 13.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 3 As 13/2007-75, 28th March 2008.
- 14.
See decision of City Court in Prague 10A 126/2011-60, 27th February 2013.
- 15.
Furek, A., Rothanzl, L., Jírovec T., p. 709.
- 16.
Free access to information does not mean creating any new information. In decision of Supreme Administrative Court 6 As 33/2011-83, 20 October 2011, this court stated: “The information that the obligated entity is obliged to provide is the existing information available to the obliged entity, usually as soon as the request for information is sent to the obliged entity”.
- 17.
If the obliged entity is town or village, the higher-level authority is usually the Regional Office.
- 18.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court č.j. 3 As 278/2015-44, 10th November 2016.
- 19.
- 20.
Ibidem.
- 21.
See Act No. 82/1998 Coll. On liability for damage caused in the exercise of public authority or by improper official procedure, as last amended.
- 22.
The purpose of this exclusion is a certain level of protection of the obliged entity from the need to generate new information for the purpose of processing the response on request. See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 4 As 37/2011-93, 20 April 2012, or decision of this court 8 As 9/2013-30, 27 November 2013.
- 23.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 1 As 141/2011-67, 9th February 2012.
- 24.
Furek, A., Rothanzl, L., Jírovec T., p. 64.
- 25.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 1 As 51/2009-106, 11th August 2009, decision of Supreme Administrative Court 2 As 87/2006-94, 15th June 2007 or decision of Supreme Administrative Court 7 As 20/2013-23, 27th February 2014.
- 26.
Act No. 412/2005 Coll., on classified information and security competencies, as last amended.
- 27.
Other central government bodies defined especially in Act No. 2/1969 Coll., on the establishing of ministries and other central government authorities of the Czech Republic, as last amended.
- 28.
Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code.
- 29.
See decision of City Court in Prague 8 A 316/2011-47, 13 March 2012. In this decision court stated: “Speeches and other manifestations of private persons do not have personal character”. However, Regional Court in Hradec Králové in its decision 52 A 12/2012-27, 30 August 2012, stated that these records may contain speeches of personal character which should be protected.
- 30.
Furek, A., Rothanzl, L., Jírovec T., p. 464–465. For example, see decision of Regional Court in Brno 29 A 52/2012-141, 10 February 2015, or Regional Court in Plzeň 30 A 8/2012-87, 28 June 2013.
- 31.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 8 As 114/2013-36, 4 August 2014.
- 32.
See decision of Czech Constitutional Court I. ÚS 2269/10, 23 February 2011.
- 33.
See decision of Czech Constitutional Court Pl. ÚS 15/96, 9 October 1996.
- 34.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 6 As 68/2014-21, 25 June 2014.
- 35.
See decision of Supreme Administrative Court 6 A 83/2001-39, 13 October 2004.
- 36.
Par. 34 of the Copyright Act.
- 37.
Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to legal protection in environmental matters.
- 38.
See Article 5 of the Aarhus Convention.
Sources
Bartík, V., & Janečková, E. (2016). Ochrana osobních údajů v aplikační praxi: (vybrané problémy). 4., aktualizované vydání. Praha: Wolters Kluwer. Právo prakticky. ISBN 978-80-7552-141-5.
Bartík, V., Janečková, E., & Mlsna, P. (2010). Svobodný přístup k informacím a obchodní tajemství. Správní právo, č. 4, pp. 229–240.
Camrda, J. (2009). Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím v judicature správních soudů. Správní právo, č. 6, pp. 321–337.
Černín, K. (2014). Informace o životním prostředí: Opona se zavírá. Správní právo, č. 4, pp. 246–252.
Furek, A. (2012a). Informační komisař – ANO či NE? Správní právo, č. 3, pp. 182–192.
Furek, A. (2012b). Rothanzl, Lukáš. FUREK, Adam. Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím a související předpisy: komentář. 2. aktualiz. a rozš. vyd. Praha: Linde. ISBN 978-80-7201-868-0.
Furek, A. (2013). Pořizování a zveřejňování záznamu z jednání zastupitelstva. Moderní obec, č. 2 a č. 3.
Furek, A. (2016). Rothanzl, Lukáš, Jírovec, Tomáš. Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím: komentář. V Praze: C.H. Beck. Beckova edice komentované zákony. ISBN 978-80-7400-273-1.
Korbel, F. (2010). Ústavní soud umožnil poskytování nepravomocných rozsudků. Bulettin advokacie, č. 5.
Korbel, F. (2013). Přehled judikatury ve věcech práva na informace. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR. Judikatura. ISBN 978-80-7478-022-6.
Korbel, F. (2015). Dopady zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím na soukromé osoby ve světle nejnovější judikatury. Právní rozhledy, č. 20, pp. 695–701.
Mates, P. (2011). Právo na informace a ochrana osobních údajů. Právní rádce, č. 2, pp. 27–34.
Mates, P. (2014). Veřejná instituce a informační povinnost. Právní rozhledy, č. 15–16, pp. 557–561.
Nonnemann, F. (2013). Poskytování informací, osobních údajů a souhlas dotčených osob. Právní rozhledy, č. 8, pp. 279–284.
Nonnemann, F. (2014). Anonymizace podpisu při poskytování informací. Moderní obec, č. 2, pp. 38–39.
Pokorný, R. (2010). Kdo je veřejnou institucí podle informačního zákona? Právní rádce, č. 5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kadečka, S., Brož, J., Rothanzl, L. (2019). The Laws of Transparency in Action: Freedom of Information in the Czech Republic. In: Dragos, D.C., Kovač, P., Marseille, A.T. (eds) The Laws of Transparency in Action. Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76460-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76460-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76459-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76460-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)