freedom of information | news | links | measuring openness

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1990 Shalit case that citizens have a fundamental right to obtain information from the government.(1)

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.

2004 freedominfo.org Global Survey Results - Israel

Back to top

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

2. Freedom of Information Law 5758-1998.

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.

6. Israel Government Gateway. http://www.info.gov.il/eng/mainpage.asp. See Israel: Round Table Report, ICA 36th Conference, October 2002.

7. Rabin, Y and Peled, Id.

8. Email from Roy Peled, Movement for Freedom of Information, January 2005.

9. Homepage: http://www.foim.org.il/main/default.aspx

10. The Protection of Privacy Law 5741-1981, 1011 Laws of the State of Israel 128. http://www.rgr.co.il/English/Resources/PRIVACYr.pdf (unofficial translation)

11. Archives Law, 5715-1955.

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).

13. Preservation of Electronic Records, Annual Report of the State Comptroller, May 2004.

Back to top