What makes freedom of information work in practice? Reflections from ATI Day 2026
This week I travelled to The Hague to take part in ATI Day 2026, organised by our friends SPOON and hosted by the Dutch Advisory Board on Public Access and Information Management (ACOI). We heard from a range of campaigners, journalists, lawyers and researchers working on access to information from across Europe and beyond, including colleagues from Poland, Hungary, India, France, Belgium, Canada, Scotland and the Netherlands.
The day was organised in advance of the Dutch government’s review of the Open Government Act (Woo). We were there to bring different answers to the question “What makes oversight of freedom of information laws effective?”. Our friends at SPOON, like many of us, are worried about the possibility of backsliding as part of the review process.
By bringing together practitioners from countries with very different systems directly into contact with the ACOI, we aimed to highlight practical lessons that could help strengthen the Dutch system. Rather than asking whether oversight bodies are needed (definitely yes!), the discussion focused on how they should be designed to make sure the right to information works in practice, not just theory.
Strong laws are only part of the picture
Although each country has a different legal system, the conversations throughout the day revealed remarkably similar challenges. Courts are often expensive and slow, ombudspeople are cheap or free but non-binding, information commissioners are effective but under-resourced.
Marzena from Citizens Network Watchdog Poland explained that in Poland there is no dedicated information commissioner. Instead, requesters can only take cases to court. While this route is relatively inexpensive compared to legal routes in other countries, we heard that cases routinely take many months to resolve, and even a successful judgment does not necessarily mean the information is released.
India has a network of information commissioners, but the transparency-averse Government delays appointing commissioners in order to create significant backlogs and frustrate the system. In some states, commission offices sit empty while appeals continue to accumulate. Satark Nagrik Sangathan has published fantastic reports detailing this.
At the European Union level, investigative journalist Alexander Fanta described another familiar dilemma: the European Ombudsman can investigate complaints and issue recommendations, but these are not binding. Going to court is possible, but often prohibitively slow and expensive. One recent transparency case from Client Earth reportedly cost around €20,000!
Our friends at FragDenStaat explained that there’s an imbalance in data-related legislation in Germany. Whilst there are significant statutory powers relating to data protection, the powers available to protect and uphold freedom of information are much weaker. One recent case relating to a rejected FOI request was successfully resolved using GDPR regulations rather than freedom of information law because those powers were stronger.
Beyond the law
In a quick 10 minute session, Toby Mendel of the Centre for Law and Democracy outlined six characteristics of effective oversight bodies. An oversight body, he argued, should be:
- independent from government
- specialised in access to information
- able to make binding decisions
- able to move beyond mediation to adjudication where necessary
- an accessible alternative to lengthy court proceedings
- responsible not only for appeals, but also for promoting the law through guidance, training and proactive publication.
Considering our own set up in the UK, I think the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has a number of strengths: it is largely independent of government, can issue legally binding decisions, provides an accessible alternative to the courts, and invests heavily in guidance and support for both requesters and public authorities.
At the same time, the conversations in The Hague were a reminder that good institutional design is only part of the picture. An oversight body also needs the capacity to resolve complaints promptly and promote a culture of openness across the public sector. Like many regulators, the ICO operates under resource constraints, and delays in resolving complaints can undermine confidence in the system, even where the underlying legal framework is strong.
The ICO itself has recognised the challenges of maintaining timeliness while responding to an increasingly broad and complex regulatory workload. Looking across the different international models, the UK has much to value and recognise, but as we’ve written about in the past , we need to accept that effective oversight requires ongoing investment as well as good legislation.
Strengthening our systems
Perhaps the strongest theme of the day was that no single institutional model has solved the problem, and we all have work to do. Carole from the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland encouraged us not to settle – her work advancing the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill to strengthen their existing system was really inspiring.
It was encouraging to hear our hosts at ACOI reflected openly on areas where the Dutch system could be strengthened, including having greater investigative powers and binding decisions. I hope the day can serve as an example to decision makers in the Dutch government that strong ATI laws combined with effective oversight systems help support thriving democracies rather than diminish them.
Stronger together
Ultimately, the day was a reminder of the value of international networks like the ATI Network . Bringing practitioners together creates space to learn from each other’s successes and setbacks, and hopefully collaborate together in future. Beyond the work of our own organisations, international attention matters to those in power. Knowing that colleagues across Europe and beyond are following developments, celebrating progress and raising concerns when transparency comes under pressure can strengthen domestic advocacy. By continuing to learn from one another, we stand a much better chance of making the right to information work not just on paper, but in practice.
If you want to help us to do more of this work, please consider donating .