I just started reading one of the books I had booked for this summer ( Open Government. Open Government) and, although I have not yet passed the introduction by the coordinators and César Calderón Sebastián Lorenzo , I could not resist to share in the blogosphere some of the thoughts that I have raised, especially given the significant lack of qualified lawyers from the list of authors of the book: Is it we are not up to the times? Anyway, this burst of summer is a sign of firm intention that, once again (is it the end?), I have proposed: to increase the regularity of my activity in the blogosphere, both personally and in relation to a research project I am coordinating: Innovation, Technology and eGovernment: Towards a new model of eGovernment (soon I hope to provide updates). Returning
reviews of the book, I'll take the three strands in the Introduction identifies as hallmarks of Open Government to treat provide a legal perspective on some of the difficulties and barriers that, in my opinion, should be solved. In order to not be thinking too "brainy" (criticism usually makes us jurists in other environments outside the law) this post will be continued with another in which I will refer to the other two cornerstones to the authors , participation and collaboration).
begin, then, by the transparency . I am increasingly convinced that the democratic nature of our administration should be strengthened beyond mere formal statements contained in constitutional and laws, so that the control over it was really effective. Even just by higher transparency may know the reality of administrative action and, therefore, allow citizens to exercise our rights formalized through such remedies, complaints or claims. What good have to end up filing an administrative appeal simply to gain legal protection that recognizes our right of access to information in a second stage, we will assess whether a fresh application on the merits of the case?
Access to information is strengthened in those areas sectoral which recognizes the so-called "public action" (urban planning, environment, lack of budgetary provision of municipal services required ...), so that the restrictions in the general scheme are mitigated in these cases because, in the final instance, knowledge of data and documents is essential to make timely claim, as argued above. And, indeed, one of the main constraints to which we refer later; legitimacy for the exercise of the actions is recognized any citizen or entity, beyond the limitations of the concept of interest, which requires ownership of a right or legitimate interest. Or in other words, any citizen is recognized in these areas, the ownership of a legitimate interest, provided the individuals whose practical importance is recognized in the art . 24 of the Constitution: the effective judicial protection of such legitimate interests. This would be the way forward in terms of legal regulation model! In this sense, the Law 27/2006 of 18 July, regulating the rights of access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters (includes Directives 2003 / 4/CE and 2003/35/EC), has strengthened the law access and, despite some of its provisions are too general, is a clear example of how to use the law to ensure greater transparency. Just do not forget that an initiative was not "spontaneous" but the English legislature, on the contrary, an obligatory transposition of EU law.
Moreover, access to public information is now strengthened from a unique perspective not always notice that, however, offers suggestions to facilitate access possibilities: its economic value, so that should be made available to individuals, businesses and citizens, that they can exploit it economically providing value added services. No doubt a huge challenge for obscurantist culture that prevails in the administrative practice and that, unless some paradigmatic examples (see Basque Government's initiative ), is still to be implemented in Spain. What a coincidence, again it is a matter which, although regulated by the English legislature ( Law 37/2007 of November 16 ) brings because of European commitments. Culture of transparency much we need, indeed! For if ye be of interest, a group of researchers from various European institutions are working in this field ( Lapsi project), I will be catching up with the news.
Undoubtedly, the great contribution of ICTs in this area is that it allows the government to go for a new model in the provision of information, so that beyond the model "reactive" as opposed to any requests that will undoubtedly can receive and respond electronically (including an automated, on the timely identification when needed) would allow a model "proactive" in the dissemination of information and even customizing the service. Here is, therefore, the added value that the Administration provide electronics (albeit not in the model of Law 11/2007, an example of "electronic bureaucracy) on transparency and access to information, but you must overcome inertia, so entrenched in our culture, administrative, redirect information to "documents formalized", "files and records" and, especially, that access to information is largely a subjective right to be exercised formalized and therefore will result in a response also formalized through the requisite procedures. Although, I must say, when the city goes in person to the administrative offices for access to the file, it is the official treating him who gives (or not) the documentation required in order to provide you with the exercise of its right, ultimately decides in legal terms. When, in fact, should be the holder of the competent body authorized by, or at least dictate general instructions about so effectively assume its responsibilities in this area. But, as I said, inertia, laziness and poor democratic belief in the importance of access to public information campaigns to ease our administrative organizations.
