•
Undernourished people (% of total population),
2000/03: N/A
•
Population with sustainable access to an improved
water source (%), 2002: 100
Source:
UN Development Program, Human Development Reports
Data
The
Freedom
of Information Law was unanimously approved by the Knesset
in May 1998 and went into effect in May 1999.(2)
The law was the culmination of a campaign launched in 1992
by the Coalition for Freedom of Information. The law allows
any citizen or resident access to information held by public
authorities including government ministries, the Presidency,
Parliament, courts, local councils, government-owned corporations
and other bodies doing public business. Additional bodies
can be included by the Justice Ministry and a committee
in the Knesset. Universities and the National Lottery were
recently included.
It
can also be used by non-citizens and non-residents relating
to their rights in Israel. The information can be in any
form, including written, recorded, filmed, photographed
or digitized. Requests for information must be processed
within 30 days and departments have 15 days after processing
to provide the information.
The
security services and other bodies that handle intelligence
matters, national security and foreign policy are excluded
from coverage under the Act. There are mandatory exemptions
for information that would harm national security, foreign
affairs of the safety of an individual, or that the Minister
of Defense has declared to be necessary for protecting national
security; personal privacy; or is protected by another law.
There are discretionary exemptions for information that
may interfere with the functioning of a public authority;
policies under development; negotiations with external bodies
of individuals; internal deliberations; internal agency
management; trade or professional secrets (except for some
environmental information); privileged information; law
enforcement customs and procedures; disciplinary affairs
of public employees; and if they would damage the privacy
of a dead person. The public authority must consider the
public interest in releasing the information.
Those
denied information may appeal to the courts, which can review
all information that is withheld and order the release of
information if it finds that the public interest in disclosure
is greater than the reason for withholding and the disclosure
if not prohibited by another law. There have been numerous
court cases which have been somewhat contradictory.(3)
The Supreme Court limited the application of the law in
2005, rejecting a lower courts ruling that "special
harm" must be found to justify withholdings.(4)
In January 2006, it limited the withholding of information
to protect internal discussions.(5)
Public
authorities must publish regulations, guidelines and information
detailing how to use the FOIL. The authorities must also
publish an annual report on their structure and activities
and appoint an official responsible for the act. Under e-government
efforts, government departments are required to publish
information on their web sites including reports.(6)
A
recent review indicates that the implementation of the law
has not been particularly successful.(7)
The Civil Service Commission never set up a planned unit
to implement the act and there is no central monitoring
of the bodies including reviewing the annual reports. There
has been almost no training of officials. There has also
been a lack of interest by requestors with most ministries
receiving less than 100 requests each year, mostly for non-personal
information requests.(8) Few journalists
appear to be using the Act. A new organization, the Freedom
of Information Movement, was recently set up to promote
openness.(9) An index published by the
FOIM and the Coleman School of Law in Rishon le-Zionin 2006
found that even the best ranked ministries did not do better
than a rating of 3.03 out of 5. The Ministries of Treasury
and Justice received the best scores while Tourism and Agriculture
were the worst.
Under
the Protection
of Privacy Law, individuals have a right to access their
personal information held in databanks by government or
private entities.(10) It is enforced by
the Registrar of Databases within the Ministry of Justice.
The
Archive Law 1955 and regulations set a 30 year rule for
access to documents submitted to the State Archives and
50 year rule for military documents.(11)
However, many government departments have created their
own archives which are not subject to the law.(12)
The State Comptroller issued a report in May 2004 critical
of the lack of guidelines on the preservation of electronic
records and warned that many were being lost or destroyed.(13)
The State Archivist, Dr. Tuvia Friling, resigned in protest
in December 2004 following the refusal of the General Security
Service and the Mossad to follow the 50 year rule and release
security documents from the time of Israel's founding.
Chapter
76 of the Penal Code sets rules on classification of information
and prohibits government employees from disclosing information.
25
FEBRUARY 2004 ISRAEL:
Land Registry on Internet from March 1 Globes
online (Israel)reports
that Minister without portfolio Meir Sheetrit has ordered
that the Land Registry ("Tabu") services be made
available online as of March 1. The decision is part of
Sheetrit's plan to expand the open government project.
Sheetrit
says the decision to expand the open government project
was taken in response to the spread of deal-makers during
the civil servants sanctions, when Land Registry offices
were closed for three straight months.
Under
the government computerization project, four franchisees
will provide Land Registry services, receiving the full
commissions in exchange. Viewing documents will cost NIS
10.
23
NOVEMBER 2003
ISRAEL: Court Rejects Paper's Request for Data Haaretz
(Israel) reports that the state comptroller is not obligated
to reveal, under the Freedom of Information Law, material
he receives in the course of his investigations, a three-justice
panel of the Supreme Court ruled.
Haaretz
had submitted a request to the state comptroller for information
pertaining to several matters discussed in the state comptroller's
reports. For example, a request was made for the names of
senior cabinet ministers, officials in government ministries
and local authorities who traveled abroad in violation of
regulations and proper procedures.
Other
information requested included: a list of public buildings
that were found to be structurally unsound and in danger
of collapsing; the names of non-profit organizations that
made illegal use of funds from bequeaths; organizations
that received excessive financial allocations from the Religious
Affairs and Interior ministries; salary figures of officials
at the Association for Soldiers' Welfare and at other public
groups that receive government funding.
Notes
1.
H.C. 1601-4/90 Shalit et al. v. Peres el at., 44(3) P.D.
353. See Debbie L. Rabina, Access to government information
in Israel: stages in the continuing development of a national
information policy, http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/018-160e.htm
3.
Rabin, Y and Peled, R (2005) Between FOI Law and FOI
Culture: The Israeli Experience. Open Government: a journal
on Freedom of Information. Volume 1 Issue 2. 26 July 2005
4.
Karniel, Y (2005) Case Comment: The New Freedom of Information
Law in Israel is Tested by its Supreme Court. Open Government:
a journal on Freedom of Information. Volume 1 Issue 2. 26
July 2005.
5.
Supreme Court: Publicly-funded bodies must provide freer
information, Jerusalem Post, 22 January 2006.
12.
Deborah
Rabina, Examination of and Recommendations for a national
information policy for Israel: the Use of Democratic Models
for the Understanding of Information Policy Processes (PhD
Thesis, 2001).
"A
2000 law affords the public access to government
information, and citizens could petition for such
access. According to the Association for Civil
Rights in Israel, the Government does not effectively
implement its freedom of information act; consequently,
information was not always easy to obtain.
The
law requires official PA institutions to "facilitate"
the acquisition of requested documents or information
to any Palestinian; however, the law does not
require any PA agency to provide such information.
Many Palestinians cited the law when seeking
to acquire information from the PA; however,
no cases have come before the PA courts. NGOs
were seeking to amend the law to make it mandatory
to provide information to Palestinians."
1)
Voice and Accountability: 0.46
2) Political Instability and Violence: -1.01
3) Government Effectiveness: 0.98
4) Regulatory Burden: 0.69
5) Rule of Law: 0.77
6) Control of Corruption: 0.79
