Take-Aways (AI)
  • Chan­ge in the legal basis, so that in prin­ci­ple no fees are char­ged for access to offi­ci­al documents.
  • Excep­ti­on: only justi­fi­ed fees in the case of dis­pro­por­tio­na­te admi­ni­stra­ti­ve costs in rela­ti­on to the public interest.

parl. Initia­ti­ve Graf-Lit­scher (16.432): Fee regu­la­ti­on. Prin­ci­ple of publi­ci­ty in the fede­ral administration
Not yet dis­cus­sed in the Council 

Sub­mit­ted text

Based on Artic­le 160 para­graph 1 of the Fede­ral Con­sti­tu­ti­on and Artic­le 107 of the Par­lia­men­ta­ry Act, I sub­mit the fol­lo­wing par­lia­men­ta­ry initiative:

The legal basis should be chan­ged so that, as a rule, no fee is char­ged for access to offi­ci­al docu­ments, and that only in justi­fi­ed excep­tio­nal cases, when the effort of the admi­ni­stra­ti­on is not in rea­sonable pro­por­ti­on to the public inte­rest, a fee is char­ged for access to offi­ci­al documents.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Sin­ce the Fede­ral Law on the Prin­ci­ple of Publi­ci­ty of the Admi­ni­stra­ti­on (BGÖ) has been in force, the char­ging of fees has been a fre­quent point of con­ten­ti­on. In the past, indi­vi­du­al admi­ni­stra­ti­ve units have deman­ded deter­rin­gly high fees. In con­nec­tion with the Duro pro­cu­re­ment, for exam­p­le, a citi­zens’ group would have had to pay the Fede­ral Office of Arma­ments (arma­su­i­s­se) 7900 francs just for checking access to the files. A noi­se pro­tec­tion asso­cia­ti­on was offe­red the pro­s­pect of a bill of 16,500 francs for access to a 90-page report. Media repre­sen­ta­ti­ves were also con­fron­ted with some­ti­mes exor­bi­tant fee demands.

Fees have only been deman­ded by a few admi­ni­stra­ti­ve bodies in the past. In 97 per­cent of the requests repor­ted to the Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion and Infor­ma­ti­on Com­mis­sio­ner (FDPIC) in the 2014/2015 report­ing year, no fees were coll­ec­ted. The fede­ral admi­ni­stra­ti­on coll­ec­ted only 2600 francs in 2015 and 6502.50 francs and 6300 francs in the years befo­re. Quite obvious­ly, fees are deli­bera­te­ly used by some admi­ni­stra­ti­ve bodies as a bar­ri­er to access, which is con­tra­ry to the spi­rit of the Public Access Act. Citi­zens or media repre­sen­ta­ti­ves con­fron­ted with such high access fees usual­ly with­draw their appli­ca­ti­ons. In fee dis­pu­tes brought befo­re the FDPIC’s arbi­tra­ti­on board, the Fede­ral Admi­ni­stra­ti­ve Court or the Fede­ral Supre­me Court, the admi­ni­stra­ti­on has repea­ted­ly been cri­ti­ci­zed for this.

If the admi­ni­stra­ti­on is con­fron­ted with a very exten­si­ve access request that is based on a low public inte­rest, it may excep­tio­nal­ly assert a justi­fi­ed cla­im for fees and thus main­tain proportionality.