Turkish Right to Information Blog

Turkish Daily News: Democracy Test and Freedom of Information

Turkish Daily News, February 10, 2009 Tuesday

PRESS SCAN-RADIKAL

RADIKAL [HH] Turkey failed democracy test An academics inquiry about the British Queens gifts revealed how Turkey was different from Britain in terms of transparency and freedom of information, daily Radikal reported yesterday

Dr. Yaman Akdeniz from Leeds University Law Faculty applied simultaneously to Turkish and British government agencies in order to learn what Queen Elizabeth had given to the Turkish president and prime minister and to their wives during her visit to Turkey. According to the freedom of information law, the agencies had to respond to the request within 15 days

While the British Foreign Ministry responded within a month, Akdeniz did not receive a response from either the Turkish presidency or the prime ministry. Britains response said Queen Elizabeth gave a history book and a special frame with her picture to the first ladies

“The incident is distressing in terms of the implementation of freedom of information law,” Akdeniz said, adding that the law was not taken seriously in Turkey. “There is a board within the Prime Ministry that evaluates information requests, but it is ineffective. State polices should be open and transparent.”

Letter welcoming President Obama’s Initiative on Transparency

“Open Letter by Members of Global Openness Community welcoming President Obama’s Initiative on Transparency”

The undersigned organizations, which work around the world to promote the right of access to information, welcome the steps taken by President Barack Obama on his first day in office to reverse recent trends and to promote high standards of openness in government. We particularly welcome the call for a clear presumption in favor of disclosure of information, so that “in the face of doubt, openness prevails”. We also welcome the inclusion, within this presumption, of an affirmative obligation on public bodies to disclose information rapidly and in forms that the public can readily find and use. Proactive disclosure is recognized internationally as an essential element of the right of access to information, along with the right to request and receive information.

President Obama has demonstrated global leadership on this issue, signaling the fundamental importance of open government in a democracy. We call on governments around the world to take similar action to promote transparency and respect for the right of access to information.

We also urge President Obama to ensure that his executive orders are given full effect, in accordance with their language and purpose. Ensuring strong implementation of these standards will set a high benchmark to inspire governments around the world.

Yours sincerely,

Access Info Europe, Helen Darbishire, Executive Director (Spain)
Access to Information Programme, Gergana Jouleva, Executive Director (Bulgaria)
Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, Paul Schabas, President (Canada)
American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, Washington Legislative Office, Director (USA)
Arab Freedom of Information Network, Said Essoulami, Executive Director
ARTICLE 19, Toby Mendel, Senior Legal Counsel
Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Roberto Saba, Executive Director (Argentina)
Association for Freedom of Thoughts and Expression, Mohamed Omran (Egypt)
Bank Information Center, Chad Dobson, Executive Director (USA)
BilgiEdinmeHakki.Org, Dr. Yaman Akdeniz, Director (Turkey)
Campaign for Freedom of Information, Maurice Frankel, Director (UK)
Carter Center, Laura Neuman, Associate Director and Access to Information Project Manager (USA)
Center for Development and Democratization of Institutions, Ilir Aliaj, Executive Director (Albania)
Center for Independent Journalism, Ioana Avadani, Executive Director (Romania)
Center for Promotion of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Vasile Spinei, President (Moldova)
Center of Access to Public Information, Edison Lanza, Director (Uruguay)
Centre for Media Freedom Middle East and North Africa, Said Essoulami, Executive Director
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Reshmi Mitra, Project Officer, Access to Information Programme, (India)
DELNA – Transparency International Latvia, Inese Voika, President (Latvia)
Due Process of Law Foundation, Eduardo Bertoni, Executive Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center, Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director (USA)
Foundation Open Society Institute, Dance Danilovska, Project Coordinator (Macedonia)
Freedom Forum, Santosh Sigdel, Executive Director (Nepal)
Freedom of Information Center of Armenia, Shushan Doydoyan, President (Armenia)
Freedom of Information Coalition, Edetaen Ojo, Coordinator (Nigeria)
Freedom of Information Coalition, Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai, Executive Director (Sierra Leone)
Fund for an Open Society, Miodrag Milosavljevic, Project Coordinator (Serbia)
Fundacion Pro Acceso, Moisés Sánchez, Executive Director (Chile)
Fundar, Miguel Pulido Jiménez, Coordinator (México)
GYLA, Tamar Gurchiani, Project Coordinator (Georgia)
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Balázs Dénes, Executive Director (Hungary)
Information Commissioner of Republic of Slovenia, Natasa Pirc, Information Commissioner (Slovenia)
Institute for Information Freedom Development in Russia, Ivan Pavlov, Lawyer and Chairman (Russia)
Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Andrés Mejía (Colombia)
Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Javier Casas (Peru)
Jamaicans for Justice, Carolyn Gomes, Executive Director (Jamaica)
Media Institute of Southern Africa, Sampa Kangwa-Wilkie, Program Specialist (Southern African Region)
Media Rights Agenda, Edetaen Ojo, Executive Director (Nigeria)
Movement for Freedom of Information in Israel, Roy Peled, Executive Director (Israel)
National Freedom of Information Coalition, Charles Davis, Executive Director (USA)
National Security Archive, Tom Blanton, Director (USA)
New York State Committee on Open Government, Robert J. Freeman, Executive Director (USA)
Open Society Institute, Aryeh Neier, President (USA)
Poder Ciudadano – Transparency International, Laura Alonso, Executive Director (Argentina)
Pro Media, Klime Babunski (Macedonia)
PROETICA – Transparency International, Cecilia Blondet, Executive Director (Peru)
PROVIDUS, Linda Austere, Policy Researcher (Latvia)
Public Citizen, Adina Rosenbaum, Attorney (USA)
Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, Darce Fardy, President (Canada)
Society for Democratic Initiatives, Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai, Executive Director (Sierra Leone)
Statewatch, Tony Bunyan, Director
Sunshine Week, Debra Gersh Hernandez, Coordinator (USA)
Sustentia, Carlos Cordero, Executive Director (Spain)
The Canadian Association of Professional Access and Privacy Administrators, Sharon Polsky, National Chair (Canada)
Transparency International – Secretariat, Andrea Figari, Global Programmes Manager (Germany)
Transparency International Anti-corruption Center, Amalia Kostanyan, Chairwoman (Armenia)
Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina, Aleksandra Martinovic, Member of the Board of Directors (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Transparency International Croatia, Zorislav Antun Petrović, President (Croatia)
Transparency International Israel, Galia Sagi, CEO (Israel)
Transparency International Russia, Marina Savintseva, Programme Co-ordinator (Russia)
Transparency International Slovakia, Emilia Beblava, President (Slovakia)
Transparency Serbia, Program Director, Nemanja Nenadic, (Serbia)
Wobbing Europe, Brigitte Alfter, Editor (Europe)
Youth Initiative for Human Rights, Sarah Maliqi, Executive Director (Kosovo)

Francesca Fanucci, International Human Rights Lawyer
John Edwards, FOI Advocate (New Zealand)
Natalia Torres, MSc Public Policy (Argentina)
Ricardo Corcuera, Legal Advisor in Human Rights (Perú)
Richard Calland, Programme Director: Economic Governance, Idasa (South Africa)
Roger Vleugels, Lecturer and Legal Advisor FOIA (The Netherlands)
Susanne Tam, Ethics Consultant, (Israel)
Walter Keim (Norway)

Resistance for information disclosure – Bergama Case No. 2

In a related case to Bergama No. 1, following the 4th Administrative Court of Ankara rejection of the applicants’ stay of execution request in May 2006, the 4th Administrative Court of İzmir issued a judgment (2005/1732 e, 2007/155 K) in favour of the applicants on 28.02.2007. The Court stated that

“the public authorities are obliged to provide every kind of information and documents to those who ask them in accordance with the principles of equality, impartiality and openness which are requisites of transparent and democratic administration in accordance with article 4 of the Right to Information Act.”

The Ministry of Finance received the judgment of the 4th Administrative Court on 24 April 2007. Subsequently, on 11 May 2007 the Ministry of Finance appealed with a stay of execution request. On 20 June 2007, the 10th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the stay of execution request of the Ministry of Finance. On 31 July 2007, the applicants applied to the Ministry of Finance with a request of the execution of the judgment of the 4th Administrative Court of İzmir. On 29 August 2007, the Ministry of Finance sent a letter to one of the applicants stating that the appeal case at the 10th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court had not yet been concluded. The Ministry argued that once the notification was received by the Ministry of Finance the necessary action would be taken.

Resistance for information disclosure – Bergama Case No. 1

Three Turkish lawyers, members of the Izmir Bar Association, who are also environmental protection activists within the Aegean region were involved in the monitoring of the activities of the EUROGOLD Mining Company which has been operating a gold mine in Bergama. Following some media rumours that EUROGOLD would sell the mining facility and leave the area without shouldering any cleaning and reforestation burden, the lawyers tried to obtain information from the Ministry of Finance with a right to information request made in February 2005 and asked the Ministry whether EUROGOLD has carried out its legal and tax obligations in accordance with the relevant domestic regulations. The comprehensive right to information request involved 14 questions.

Parliament rejects CHP bugging probe request

Parliament rejects CHP bugging probe request: “A motion requesting a probe into Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Interior Minister Beşir Atalay for alleged wiretapping of the headquarters of Turkeys main opposition Republican Peoples Party (CHP) was rejected in Parliament yesterday.”

(Via Today’s Zaman, your gateway to Turkish news :: News.)

Zaman: Freedom of Information is not so free

Freedom of Information is not so free: “Freedom of Information is not so free
The number of individual citizens requesting information from public agencies as part of an information access law that promotes transparency and democracy has been increasing, but the number of rejections of these requests has also been rising, a report has shown. “

According to a report on queries made by individual citizens to public agencies in 2007 prepared by the Prime Ministry’s Council on Information Acquisition (BEDK), higher judicial organs have been the most resistant of all state institutions to comply with a law governing the right to information.

Those agencies reluctant to respond to requests for information in the first few years after the law’s enactment were much more responsive to queries in 2007. Another report released in May of this year compiled by Yaman Akdeniz, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Leeds, assessing the implementation of the Right to Information Act, agrees that agencies have been more responsive, but highlights that resistance still remains in place.

The most notable example, however, is undoubtedly the Constitutional Court, which received 3,389 requests and rejected 2,367 of them. None of the inquirers appealed the court’s rejection. Nearly 1 million requests were made to public agencies across the country last year and only about 7 percent were rejected. The Constitutional Court’s rejection rate last year stood at 69.8 percent.

The Supreme Court of Appeals rejected all 154 inquiries made to it last year and the Council of State rejected 115 out of 146 requests. The law went into force on April 24, 2004 as a necessary means to ensure a democratic and transparent administration. The BEDK was set up when several agencies refused to respond to queries from citizens.

Under the law, if an agency refuses to respond to a request for information, the inquirer has the right to appeal the agency’s refusal by turning to the BEDK, which decides whether an agency can provide the information sought or not.

Akdeniz’s report, released in May, incorporates data and research gathered between 2004 and 2008. It suggests that higher numbers of right to information requests in the latter years after the law went into force suggest broader awareness of the existence of the law and the right to information and access to official documents in Turkey. However, the right to information is not being completely complied with, Akdeniz’s report found.

At the time of the release of the report Akdeniz said: “Although the enactment of the Right to Information Act is a very important step towards openness, transparency and democratization, the report has identified several problems with the application of the law. As the report will show, despite the BEDK’s decisions and administrative court orders, resistance to give information remains and a high number of public authorities dispute the council’s decisions either by ignoring them or by appealing to administrative courts to challenge them. Therefore, there needs to be significant improvements to the current system to break down the culture of secrecy and resistance to provide information.”

Akdeniz, a freedom of information activist since 1998, is also the co-founder of the BilgiEdinmeHakki.org lobby group, which has monitored the implementation and application of this law since 2003. The full report can be acquired from their Web site.

The BEDK report

According to the BEDK report released last week, 395,557 queries were made to public agencies around the country in 2004 compared to a total of 998,442 applications demanding information in 2007. About 5 percent of the queries were denied an answer in 2004 and 7 percent in 2007.

The report found that the attitude of security-related institutions was changing positively on the right to information. For example, the National Intelligence Organization (MİT), which put up some resistance in the beginning, was one of the most responsive public agencies last year. No queries were made to the Military High Administrative Court and the Military Supreme Court of Appeals. The Constitutional Court received 3,389 queries while the General Staff received 8,405 requests for information. Only 89 requests were made to the National Security Council (MGK), a sharp fall from 128 queries in 2004 when the MGK had not yet been reformed to become a more civilian institution.

The General Staff responded to 6,100 out of the 8,405 queries it received, partially responded to 91, refused to respond to 1,654 and redirected 549 to other public agencies. Only four inquirers appealed rejected queries last year. In comparison, of the 2,017 requests made in 2004 to the General Staff, only 278 inquiries received a response, 365 received a partial response, 139 were rejected and 638 were unanswered, with the involved agency citing classified or sensitive information as the reason.

In 2007 MİT replied to 2,388 queries out of the 3,398 it received. It gave a partial response to 85 and refused to give any information at all to 837 queries. It redirected 88 queries to other public agencies. In 2004 MİT replied to 4,260 out of 6,185 questions and rejected 1,797.

In 2007 Parliament received 1,865 queries, 18.5 percent less than the year before. Nearly 70 percent of these queries received a full response while 17 percent were rejected. Parliament redirected 228 queries that should have been addressed to other institutions to the relevant public agencies.

CHP eavesdropping allegations proven false

CHP eavesdropping allegations proven false

Allegations that the government bugged Republican People’s Party (CHP) Secretary-General Önder Sav’s private office without authorization were proven false when the daily that sparked the controversy revealed the source of the conversation transcript the CHP had based its accusations on.

Zaman: Wiretapping and slandering

Today’s Zaman, your gateway to Turkish news: Wiretapping and slandering

Politician: What is the political atmosphere like in Bolu?
Governor: Your job is not that easy. However, it wouldn’t be right to give up just because it is difficult.

Politician: Do you have the determined and careful human resources required to facilitate the political formation that will win the public over in the town?

Governor: Yes, we do, albeit small. It is necessary to know that we don’t have many people.

Politician: How do you view Bolu, in particular from the political perspective? What can be done?

Governor: Bolu’s base is the Republican People’s Party [CHP]. We can see that the CHP’s votes are growing — particularly in local elections. If a large group is established in Bolu, things could change for the better for the CHP to such an extent that the CHP may well win the elections.

This dialogue is from a conversation that took place between Önder Sav, the CHP secretary-general, and Mehmet Ali Serindağ, the former governor of Bolu, who has been relieved of duty through a recently enacted bylaw on governors. I should first of all note that this type of relationship and conversation should never take place between a political party official and the highest-ranking bureaucrat who represents the state in his province. It’s impossible for us to approve of either this dialogue or relationship. An understanding of public administration based on impartiality and a democratic culture never allow for such a relationship or dialogue.

Zaman: Who is wiretapping the CHP?

Today’s Zaman, your gateway to Turkish news: Who is wiretapping the CHP?

The wiretapping of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) headquarters is a very grave situation despite the ruthlessness, rashness and inconsiderateness of CHP leader Deniz Baykal’s statement about it. The duty of taking the very first action is incumbent on the government and the judiciary.

Zaman: Bug

Today’s Zaman, your gateway to Turkish news: Bug, By Ekrem Dumanli, 30.05.2008

Unusual things are happening in Turkey. At a time when the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) closure case is being reviewed at the Constitutional Court, one of the 11 members of the court met with Turan Çömez. Who is Çömez?