IFG case law from state administrative courts strengthens the “public watchdog” role of civil society organizations
Austrian Regional Administrative Courts have begun interpreting the new Information Freedom Act (IFG), which entered into force in September 2025. Recent decisions strengthen the role of animal welfare and environmental organisations as “public watchdogs” when assessing whether requested information must be disclosed.
Under the Act, authorities must provide information unless statutory secrecy grounds apply, such as data protection, business secrets, national security, or protected third-party interests. These grounds only justify refusal if they outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In cases concerning animal testing, the Salzburg and Burgenland courts emphasised the high public interest in transparency and recognised the watchdog function of civil society organisations. The Salzburg court also held that poor archiving or lack of structured electronic records cannot justify refusing access. However, the Vorarlberg court took a stricter view, refusing disclosure where it saw risks of identifying and discriminating against employees of animal-testing institutions.
Overall, the case law suggests a growing judicial recognition of civil society organisations’ role in public oversight, though further clarification by the Supreme Administrative Court may follow.
Better Regulation – for everybody? The curtailment of public rights and impact assessments in the EU legislative process
The European Commission plans to revise its “Better Regulation” guidelines to make EU lawmaking simpler, clearer, and easier to enforce. These guidelines are meant to ensure that legislation is transparent and based on evidence. The Commission aims to improve legal clarity, enforcement, coherence of existing laws, and EU competitiveness by reducing overregulation.
However, these changes risk undermining democratic principles and evidence-based policymaking. Simplifying procedures—especially impact assessments and public participation—could lead to rushed, unclear, and inconsistent laws, increasing legal uncertainty. Limiting public involvement may also trigger more legal challenges later, as citizens lose the chance to raise concerns early in the process.
The reform conflicts with the EU’s own commitments to transparency and public participation under EU treaties and international law. It also comes despite recommendations from the EU Ombudsman, who criticized the Commission for bypassing impact assessments and public consultation in urgent cases without proper justification or transparency. Instead of addressing these concerns, the Commission is lowering procedural standards, which can be seen as a step toward deregulation that could weaken rights and legal quality.