transarency french case - universidad paris 1. panteón sorbona

William GILLESDirector of the Chair of Americas (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Director of the master of Digital Law (Public sector and Firms)at the Sorbonne Law School

President of IMODEV

10

/11

/20

13

[email protected] 1

10

/11

/20

13

William GILLES –[email protected]

2

“My Administration is committed to creating anunprecedented level of openness in Government. Wewill work together to ensure the public trust andestablish a system of transparency, public participation,and collaboration. Openness will strengthen ourdemocracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness inGovernment”

B. Obama 2009

Open Government is :- Transparency- But also

- participation - and collaboration

10

/11

/20

13


3

Open government is not only based on transparency. At the same time:

to favor the transparency of public policies, to encourage the participation of citizens and civil servants, and to develop the collaboration of these actors.

3 objectives with the same target: reinforcing democracy.

Open government favors democracy. Participates Even more widely in the emergence of a democratic revival. A new hope to fight the crisis of representativeness in western

democracies. Not surprising that open government has been implemented widely in the

world. Of course, the United States of America (pioneers). Canada has also led a pro-active policy in favor of open government. In most countries in Europe Vey fashionable topics.

10

/11

/20

13

4William GILLES – [email protected]

France & Open government partnership (OGP)

However France is eligible to this partnership

It respects all criteria imposed to those which want to join the open government partnership.

Several measures has been adopted since the 70’s to reinforce first, transparency, but also more recently to develop:

• participation • and collaboration of citizens and of civil servants.

10

/11

/20

13


5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Brazil, Czech republic, Chile, Croatia, Italy, New Zealand, Norway,

Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, United

States

Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania,

Moldova

Albania, France, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, South Korea, Liberia,

Macedonia, Philippines, Poland, Thailand, Ukraine

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan,

Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Switzerland

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Honduras, India, Mexico, Nicaragua,

Peru, Slovakia, Slovenia, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda

Armenia, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay

Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,

Guatemala, Mongolia, Nepal, Russia, Serbia

Azerbaijan, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya,

Luxembourg, Pakistan, Spain, Tanzania, Turkey

Israel

10

/11

/20

13


6

16

12

15

11

14

10

1312

9

1 10,94 0,92

0,880,83 0,81

0,75 0,75

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Bra

zil,

Czech r

epublic

, C

hile

, C

roatia

, Italy

, N

ew

Ze

ala

nd, N

orw

ay, P

ort

ug

al, R

om

ania

, S

outh

Afr

ica

,S

weden, U

nited K

ingdom

, U

nited S

tate

s

Au

str

alia

, C

anada, F

inla

nd, H

ungary

, Ir

ela

nd, Latv

ia,

Lith

uania

, M

old

ova

Alb

an

ia, F

ran

ce, G

eorg

ia, G

erm

any, In

don

esia

, S

ou

thK

ore

a, Lib

eria

, M

acedon

ia, P

hili

pp

ine

s, P

ola

nd

,T

haila

nd, U

kra

ine

Au

str

ia, B

elg

ium

, D

enm

ark

, E

sto

nia

, G

reece, Ic

ela

nd,

Jam

aic

a, Japan, M

alta, M

onte

negro

, N

eth

erla

nds,

Sw

itzerlan

d

Bo

snia

-Herz

egovin

a, B

ulg

aria

, H

ondu

ras, In

dia

, M

exic

o,

Nic

ara

gua, P

eru

, S

lovakia

, S

lovenia

, T

rin

idad

And

To

bago, U

ga

nda

Arm

enia

, P

anam

a, P

ara

guay, U

ruguay

Arg

entin

a,

Colo

mbia

, C

osta

Ric

a, D

om

inic

an R

epublic

,G

uate

mala

, M

ongolia

, N

epal, R

ussia

, S

erb

ia

Azerb

aija

n, E

cuador,

El S

alv

ador,

Gha

na, Jord

an,

Ke

nya, Luxem

bou

rg, P

akis

tan, S

pain

, T

anza

nia

, T

urk

ey

Isra

el

Total Score

Total possible2

Share of Total Points

10

/11

/20

13



France is not yet a member of OGP

… because “it is an American initiative in favor of open governance for its historic sphere of influence (Anglo-Saxon world and South America). France works in a narrow way with governments involved in the initiative, in particular the United Kingdom and the United States, and moreover, maintains closed relations with Arab Springs Countries, to favor open governance and open data in Europe and in the world, an approach of interoperability. Moreover France has initiated a discussion with the executive committee of the Open Government Partnership to join it” (Etalab, 2012 )

10

/11

/20

13



Even if France is not yet a member of OGP …

It is interesting to use OGP criteria in order to have a common and an objective analysis grid in order to compare France to others.

However, this framework is not perfect, notably because it not exhaustive.

Thus, analyzing more deeply French measures in favor of open government will offer a better framework of this system and will show that France is on the way of the “democracy 2.0”.

10

/11

/20

13


9

10

/11

/20

13


10

L’apport de la Révolution française dans la recherche de transparence des administrations publiques françaises

Le cadre juridique de la transparence des administrations publiques hérité de la Révolution française

10

/11

/20

13


11

Le contexte de l’adoption par la France d’un droit d’accès aux documents administratifs

Le contenu du cadre juridique français en matière d’accès aux documents administratifs

10

/11

/20

13


12

Loi du 5 avril 1884 sur l’organisation municipale :

« Tout habitant ou contribuable a le droit de demander communication sans déplacement, de prendre copie totale ou partielle des procès-verbaux du conseil municipal, des budgets et des comptes de la communes, des arrêtés municipaux. Chacun peut les publier sous sa responsabilité ».

10

/11

/20

13


13

Loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 : 1974 : l’affaire SAFARI Loi du 6 janvier 1978 Loi du 17 juillet 1978 Ordonnance du 6 juin 2005 (dir. PSI 2003,

rév. dir. Juin 2013)

10

/11

/20

13


14

2 voies d’accès aux documents administratifs : un droit d’accès général aux documents

administratifs Une voie d’accès restrictive réservée aux

documents administratifs opposables aux usagers et aux agents

10

/11

/20

13


15

Un encadrement du droit d’accès aux documents administratifs La notion de documents administratifs

bénéficiant du droit d’accès Les documents exclus du droit d’accès Des documents avec un accès conditionné

10

/11

/20

13


16

Les modalités d’exercice du droit d’accès aux documents administratifs consulter gratuitement et sur place ces documents, à

moins que leur préservation ne le permette pas sous réserve que la reproduction ne nuise pas à la

conservation du document, toute personne peut demander, à ses propres frais, la délivrance d’une copie sur un support identique à celui utilisé par l'administration.

quand une version électronique est disponible, envoi du document par email et sans frais (sans excéder le coût de reproduction).

10

/11

/20

13


17

Le contexte de l’adoption par la France d’un droit d’accès aux documents administratifs

Le contenu du cadre juridique français en matière d’accès aux documents administratifs

10

/11

/20

13


18

10

/11

/20

13


19

The Fiscal Transparency : T

The Access to Public Information : T

Disclosures related to Elected or Senior Public Officials : T

[The Citizen Engagement] : P

10

/11

/20

13


20

10

/11

/20

13


21

imposes governments to publish basic information of budget accountability and to have an open budget system.

Rating system based on the 2010 Open Budget Index (the International Budget Partnership).

2 points: the country publishes executive’s budget proposals

2 more points for the publication of audit reports.

4 points to France for publishing these two kinds of documentson “Le forum de la performance publique”.

10

/11

/20

13


Quality of the Budget

Information

Pre

-Bu

dge

tst

atem

ent

Exe

cuti

veB

ud

get

pro

po

sal

Enac

ted

Bu

dge

t

Cit

izen

sB

ud

get

InY

ear

Rep

ort

s

Mid

-Yea

rR

evie

w

Yea

r-En

dR

epo

rt

Au

dit

Rep

ort

OBI Score OGP score Countries

Extensive Information

(OBI sub–scores 81-100)

* * * * * * * * 90

4

New Zealand

* * * * * * * * 87 France

* * * * * * * * 87 United Kingdom

- * * * * * * * 83 Norway

* * * * * - * * 83 Sweden

- * * - * * * * 82 United States

Significant

(OBI subscores 61-80)

* * * - * - * * 71

4

Brazil

* - * - * * * * 70 Slovenia

- * * * * - * * 68 Germany

- * * * * * * * 67 India

* * * - * * * * 64 Poland

P * * - * - * * 63 Spain

- * * - * - * * 62 Czech Republic

Some

(OBI subscores 41-60)

P * * - * - * * 60

4

Russia

- * * - * - * * 59 Romania

* * * - * * * * 58 Italy

- * * - * - * * 58 Portugal

* * * - * - * * 57 Croatia

* * * - * * * - 57 Slovakia

- * * - * P * P 56 Bulgaria

(*): Available to the Public (P): Available for interne use (-

): Not Available

Source: Open Budget Index and Open Government Partnership

Comparison between

OBI and OGP scores

10

/11

/20

13


23

According to it, law should guarantee the public public’s right to information and access to government data.

Based on a 2010 survey over 197 countries led by Right2Info.org

4 points : the country provides access to information laws,

3 points : the constitution guarantees the access to information

1 point : a draft access to information law is under consideration.

4 points to France, (as all the other countries rated, except two of them: Luxembourg and Spain.

“Luxembourg, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, isfailing to achieve even minimum standards when it comes toopen government, public participation, and accountability”

(Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info Europe2011).

10

/11

/20

13


24

10

/11

/20

13


25

aims to favor disclosure of income and assets for elected and senior public officials in order to prevent corruption and to have a more open and accountable government.

OGP ranking based on 3 surveys conducted in 2009 (Word Bank and OECD):

4 points to countries having a law requiring disclosures for politicians andsenior public officials to the public

3 points when the law requirement for disclosures to the public concernseither politicians or senior public officials.

2 points If the law provides non-public disclosures for elected or seniorofficials.

Only 3 points to France if income and assets of senior public officials are disclosed publicly, this

information is only accessible to the Congress for elected people. This question is still in debate in France.

10

/11

/20

13


26

10

/11

/20

13


A transparent government supposes five conditions (Trichet, 2012): Clarity

Truth

Exhaustiveness, sincerity and fidelity

A public debate

Responsibility

These five conditions contribute all to the reinforcement of the democratic process.

France has constantly led actions in view of this. Of course, everything is not completed and there are always

possibilities of improvement.

10

/11

/20

13


Country Budget

Transpare

ncy

Score

Access to Information Asset Disclosure Citizen engagement Total

Score

Total

possibl

e

Share of

Total

PointsScore Politicians Officials Score Score

AUSTRALIA - Law 4 public public 4 10 4 12 12 1

AUSTRIA - Law 4 public Non public 3 9,12 4 11 12 0,917

BELGIUM - Law 4 public Non public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917

BRAZIL 4 Law 4 public public 4 9,12 4 16 16 1

BULGARIA 2 Law 4 public public 4 8,82 4 14 16 0,875

CANADA - Law 4 public public 4 10 4 12 12 1

CROATIA 4 Law 4 public public 4 8,24 4 16 16 1

CZECH REP. 4 Law 4 public public 4 9,41 4 16 16 1

DENMARK - Law 4 public 3 9,71 4 11 12 0,917

ESTONIA - Law 4 public none 3 8,82 4 11 12 0,917

FINLAND - Law 4 public public 4 9,71 4 12 12 1

FRANCE 4 Law 4 congress public 3 8,53 4 15 16 0,937

GERMANY 4 Law 4 public none 3 9,12 4 15 16 0,937

GREECE - law 4 public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917

HUNGARY - law 4 public public 4 8,53 4 12 12 1

ICELAND - law 4 public 3 9,71 4 11 12 0,917

INDIA 4 law 4 congress Non public 2 9,41 4 14 16 0,875

IRELAND - law 4 public Public 4 10 4 12 12 1

ISRAEL - law 4 congress None 2 5,29 3 9 12 0,75

10

/11

/20

13


Country Budget

Transparency

Score

Access to Information Asset Disclosure Citizen

engagement

Total

Score

Total

possi

ble

Share of

Total

PointsScore Politicians Officials Score Score

ITALY 4 law 4 public Public 4 8,53 4 16 16 1

JAPAN - law 4 public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917

LATVIA - law 4 public Public 4 9,12 4 12 12 1

LITHUANIA - law 4 Public Public 4 9,12 4 12 12 1

Luxembourg 4 draft law 1 Public None 3 9,71 4 12 16 0,75

MALTA - law 4 Public Non public 3 9,71 4 11 12 0,917

NETHERLANDS - law 4 Public Non public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917

NEW ZEALAND 4 law 4 Public Public 4 10 4 16 16 1

NORWAY 4 law 4 Public Public 4 10 4 16 16 1

POLAND 4 law 4 Public Non public 3 9,12 4 15 16 0,937

Portugal 4 law 4 Public public 4 9,41 4 16 16 1

ROMANIA 4 law 4 Public public 4 8,24 4 16 16 1

RUSSIA 4 law 4 Congress public 3 4,71 2 13 16 0,812

SLOVAKIA 2 law 4 public public 4 9,12 4 14 16 0,875

SLOVENIA 4 law 4 congress 2 8,82 4 14 16 0,875

SPAIN 4 draft law 1 public Non public 3 9,41 4 12 16 0,75

SWEDEN 4 law 4 public public 4 10 4 16 16 1

SWITZERLAND - law 4 public none 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917

UNITED KINGDOM 4 law 4 public public 4 9,12 4 16 16 1

UNITED STATES 4 law 4 public public 4 8,53 4 16 16 1Extract from OGP Eligibility Data 2012, December 2012

transarency french case - universidad paris 1. panteón sorbona

Documents

favor of open government

public participation

united statesaustralia

united kingdom

participation of citizens

system of transparency

south africa

czech republic