{"id":38884,"date":"2025-08-22T13:37:10","date_gmt":"2025-08-22T11:37:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/?p=38884"},"modified":"2025-08-27T15:18:21","modified_gmt":"2025-08-27T13:18:21","slug":"access-info-ranks-ati-laws-in-15-european-countries-with-public-request-platforms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/es\/2025-08-22\/access-info-ranks-ati-laws-in-15-european-countries-with-public-request-platforms\/","title":{"rendered":"Access Info Ranks ATI Laws in 15 European Countries with Public Request Platforms"},"content":{"rendered":"

27 August 2025 – Access Info Europe has released a study comparing access to information (ATI) frameworks in 15 European countries, all of which operate public request platforms. The analysis measures how well national laws align with the Council of Europe\u2019s Troms\u00f8 Convention and other international standards.<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

About the study <\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The research was carri<\/span>ed out under the Access to Information Network Project<\/strong>, a three-year initiative led by Access Info Europe, mySociety, and the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany. The project aims to build a strong, collaborative European community advocating for better access to information.<\/span><\/p>\n

As part of this work, Access Info conducted a detailed legal assessment of ATI frameworks of the 15 countries in Europe that have a public request platform, such as AskTheEU.org<\/a>, which enable citizens to file ATI requests directly with public authorities. To strengthen transparency, all requests, responses and released documents are published online.<\/p>\n

The evaluation was based on the first ten articles of the Troms\u00f8 Convention, using a scoring system of up to 300 points. This benchmark highlights both strengths and weaknesses in national legislation and provides a roadmap for reforms in line with international standards.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Rank<\/strong><\/td>\nCountry<\/strong><\/td>\nYear of law<\/strong><\/td>\nPoints out of 300<\/strong><\/td>\nTroms\u00f8 signed<\/strong><\/td>\nTroms\u00f8 ratified<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1.<\/td>\nUkraine<\/a><\/td>\n2011 (amended 2025)<\/td>\n227<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\nCroatia<\/a><\/td>\n2013 (amended 2022)<\/td>\n215<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\nMoldova<\/a><\/td>\n2023<\/td>\n211<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\nNetherlands<\/a><\/td>\n2022<\/td>\n211<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\nHungary<\/a><\/td>\n2011<\/td>\n209<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\nGeorgia<\/a><\/td>\n1999<\/td>\n182<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\nUK<\/a><\/td>\n2000<\/td>\n172<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\nAustria<\/a><\/td>\n2024<\/td>\n165<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\nSweden<\/a><\/td>\n2009<\/td>\n164<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\nRomania<\/a><\/td>\n2001<\/td>\n149<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\nFrance<\/a><\/td>\n1978 (amended 2016)<\/td>\n144<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\nCzech Republic<\/a><\/td>\n1999 (amended 2016)<\/td>\n142<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\nGreece<\/a><\/td>\n1999 (amended 2024)<\/td>\n142<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\nGermany<\/a><\/td>\n2005 (amended 2013)<\/td>\n114<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\nBelgium<\/a><\/td>\n1994 (amended 2024)<\/td>\n98<\/td>\nYes<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/h2>\n

Key findings<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n