Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey - Federation of ...

example where the request is complex, requires a search through records not located at the main offi ce
or requires consultations with others. Often, any time taken by applicants – for example to respond to
questions for clarifi cation or to pay fees – is not taken into account in determining the response time. In
many countries, a failure to respond within the time limits constitutes a deemed refusal of the request. In
Peru, an unacceptably ambiguous response also constitutes a deemed refusal.
A number of countries – including India and Azerbaijan – have shorter time limits in special cases. In both
India and Azerbaijan, a 48 hour time limit applies where the information is needed to protect life or liberty
and Azerbaijan further provides for a 24 hour time limit where the information is needed urgently. In the
United States, special time limits apply to cases of compelling need – including a threat to life or safety,
or where there is an urgent need to information the public about government activity – in which case the
information must be provided within ten days.
The United Kingdom law has a special (longer) set of time limits where the public interest override is
under consideration. In a number of countries – including Japan, Bulgaria and Uganda – different (longer)
time limits apply where third party notice is required. Some countries – including Jamaica and Uganda
– also allow for extended time limits under certain conditions, such as where the information is about to
be published. This can problematically delay requests where the extended time limits are not carefully
circumscribed.
Most countries provide for the transfer of requests – or for the applicant to be notifi ed – where information
is held by another public body. The standard for effecting such a transfer varies, ranging from where the
original body does not hold the information – Uganda, Bulgaria – to where the information is more closely
connected to the work of another body – United Kingdom, India – to where this is ‘justifi able’ – Japan.
In Thailand, the test is whether the information was prepared by and marked as confi dential by another
body. In Sweden, the body receiving the request must respond to it, outside of exceptional cases set out
specifi cally in law, such as where the ‘security of the realm’ is in issue. In some cases – such as Jamaica,
South Africa and Thailand – the original body itself effects the transfer while in others – such as Mexico
– the applicant is simply informed. In the United Kingdom, direct transfers are permitted only where the
other body confi rms it holds the information and the transfer is not likely to be opposed by the applicant;
otherwise, the applicant is simply informed.
Most laws also require public bodies to give written notice of their responses to requests. For requests
which are being granted, the notice may include any fees and the form in which the request is to be granted,
perhaps along with the right to appeal against these; where the request is refused, the notice normally
includes the reasons for such refusal, preferably by reference to a specifi c legal provision, along with
information about the right to appeal against the refusal. This allows the requester to determine whether
or not to pursue any appeal options and also provides a basis for the appeal, should one be brought.
Various countries have more specifi c rules. In Peru, a refusal notice must additionally note the time the
information is expected to remain confi dential. In Bulgaria, a notice granting access must specify the time
limit within which access may be ‘claimed’ while a refusal notice must either be signed for by the applicant
or be sent by registered post. In both the United States and Kyrgyzstan, a refusal notice must include the
name of the offi cial responsible for the decision. In the United States, the quantity of information denied
must also be provided, while in Kyrgyzstan, the details not only of specifi c appeal rights but also of bodies
in the locality which deal with human rights and information issues must be provided.
Many countries allow applicants to select from among a number of forms of access, such as inspection
of the document, a transcript, an electronic copy, a photocopy or an offi cial copy. The Indian law provides
further for inspection of public works and for samples, while the Bulgarian law provides for verbal
responses. The form specifi ed may usually be refused in certain cases, for example where this would harm
the record, unreasonably divert the resources of the public body or infringe copyright. In some countries
– including South Africa and Azerbaijan – the law specifi cally provides for access in the language preferred
by the applicant, if the record exists in that language. The Ugandan law provides for special access by the
disabled, at no extra cost.
The issue of how much effort public bodies should be required to make to present information in a form in
which it is usable for the applicant or to extract information from different forms in which it may be held
145