Restrictions on Freedom: On the Proposed Revision of the German Federal Freedom of Information Act (Published on 16/07/2026)
One cannot help but note a troubling trend in Germany: the deliberate curtailment of citizens’ freedoms protected by fundamental rights at all levels, often accompanied by a sudden reinterpretation of well-established fundamental legal principles – such as the principle of proportionality, which serves as a central guiding principle for all government action.
I. The German state’s increasingly repressive behavior toward its citizens: From responsible citizens to subjects?
During the “Corona” measures already, the impression arose that the state increasingly views its citizens – as the people who are the bearers of all state power (cf. Art. 20 para. 2 sentence 1 of the German Basic Law [“Grundgesetz”, GG]) – as adversaries who must either conform to the state’s own political views or face consequences that can sometimes be severe. One need only recall the violent police actions against demonstrators – in addition to the case of the elderly woman, which remains unresolved to this day, the use of a so-called “head lever technique” against an elderly man and the epileptic seizure triggered by the use of pepper spray at close range are particularly memorable – which, at least as far as is known here, did not result in any legal consequences for the police officers involved.
Another peculiar case is that of the so-called “flower ban” at the two military cemeteries in Hürtgen Forest, where, since September 2022, visitors have been generally prohibited from leaving “symbols of mourning”, such as flowers or candles, and are required to request prior permission to do so.
Almost daily cases of repression for statements directed at political figures, which, while often in poor taste, are nonetheless clearly protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Art. 5 para. 1 sentence 1 GG – at least according to its traditional interpretation – and are therefore permissible, are further evidence of a state that is becoming increasingly thin-skinned.
The impression is growing that there is no longer any interest in the state-supporting ideal of the so-called “responsible citizen” who acts as an equal, and that preference is now given to submissive subjects who meekly submit to every action of the state without complaint.
II. The German Federal government aims to “further develop and adapt” the Federal Freedom of Information Act
This picture is further illustrated by the recent announcement by the CDU/CSU and SPD coalition currently governing at the Federal level in its „Programm für Aufschwung und Beschäftigung“ [“Program for Economic Recovery and Employment”], published on 02/07/2026, in which, under the section “Reducing Bureaucracy”, item 32 (pp. 11-12), the following noteworthy statements regarding an intended “further development and adaptation of the Freedom of Information Act to current challenges” can be found (this and all subsequent citations are translated from German language):
“We will continue to develop the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) while safeguarding the right of access to official information and in consultation with the BfDI [German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information], and adapt it to meet current challenges.
We will make the complex IFG more understandable and transparent for citizens. In the future, we want to focus the right to access information on natural persons who have a legitimate interest in obtaining such information and cannot do so through other regulations. In doing so, we will examine whether to limit the group of eligible individuals to German citizens and EU citizens living in Germany.
We want to protect our employees from hostility and threats by redacting their names. In times of complex internal and external threats, we aim to increase national resilience and better address the special protection needs of certain sectors, such as critical infrastructure, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and scientific research. We will adjust the IFG fees in accordance with the cost-recovery principle.”
Here, flowery language laced with empty phrases is intended to obscure, through the use of technical jargon, what is actually intended: a massive restriction on citizens’ right to access Federal government information under the IFG.
III. The legislative history of the Federal Freedom of Information Act
First, it is worth taking a brief look at the legislative history of the IFG. It is important to note the federal structure of the Federal Republic of Germany, under which the Federal level is responsible for regulating freedom of information with respect to federal official information, whereas official information from the states and municipalities falls under the jurisdiction of the states and is regulated by corresponding state laws. The IFG at issue here is the federal law and applies only to access to federal official information.
While other countries have had freedom of information laws for decades, it was not until December 2004 that the Federal government at the time – a coalition of the SPD and Alliance 90/The Greens – presented a bill for a Federal German Freedom of Information Act. The bill granted every person an unconditional legal right to access official information from federal agencies, permitting denial of access only in certain exceptional cases.
This bill was passed with the votes of the government coalition, against the votes of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group; the FDP and Petra Pau (Communist party), who was not affiliated with any parliamentary group at the time, abstained (see the plenary session minutes, 16595 (B)). The IFG took effect on 01/01/2006.
The IFG seems to have always been a thorn in the side of the CDU/CSU in particular. During the coalition negotiations between the current coalition partners, it became known that the CDU/CSU wanted to “abolish the IFG in its current form”. In contrast, the coalition agreement contains a significantly more moderate statement, saying that the goal is to “reform the IFG in its current form (…) in a way that adds value for citizens and the administration” (see the 2025 Coalition Agreement, p. 61, lines 1894 ff.).
IV. The German Federal government’s proposed restrictions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act
The Federal government now intends to put this “reform” into practice with the aforementioned announcement. It aims to “continue to develop” the IFG as a measure to “reduce bureaucracy” and “adapt it to current challenges”; the “complicated IFG” is to become “more understandable and transparent for citizens”.
It plans to achieve this by
narrowing the group of individuals entitled to transparency under the IFG,
raising the requirements for access to information for this group,
expanding the grounds for denying access, and
significantly increasing the costs associated with accessing information.
Citizens’ right to access official information under the IFG – which, with only 15 provisions, is already very straightforward and relatively easy to understand – would be significantly curtailed by this, if not effectively thwarted in most cases.
1. Restriction on the group of persons entitled to transparency
First, the current universal obligation to provide access to official information under the IFG (cf. sec. 1 para. 1, sentence 1 IFG) will in the future apply only to natural persons; legal entities, which are currently included on an equal footing, are to be excluded. This group of eligible claimants, which is already significantly restricted, is to be further narrowed by limiting it to German citizens and EU citizens residing in Germany.
The right of access to official information under the IFG is thus to become a right of Germans living in Germany – with whom citizens of other EU member states are treated as equals under European law.
It will be very interesting to see how the Federal government intends to implement this – solely with regard to the fundamental rights to equal treatment under Art. 3 para. 1 GG and the right to effective legal protection under Art. 19 para. 4 GG, which, according to Art. 19 para. 3 GG, also apply to domestic legal entities – and, in turn, equally to those from other EU member states — in a manner which is compatible with the Grundgesetz.
2. Access to information is granted only if there is a “legitimate interest” and on a subsidiary basis
For this limited group of individuals, the Federal government has stated that the current unconditional right to access official information (cf. sec. 1, 7 IFG) will in the future, on the one hand, be made contingent upon proof of a legitimate interest and, on the other hand, will apply only if such access cannot be “achieved” through “other regulations”. What these “other regulations” are and when, in the Federal government’s view, access to information can be “achieved” through them remains unclear at this time. The IFG already operates on a principle of subsidiarity under current law (cf. sec. 1 para. 3 IFG); however, in light of the Federal government’s announcement, an expansion to include the provisions exempted there is likely.
3. Expansion of the grounds for denial of access
The Federal government states that it wants to “increase national resilience” “in times of complex internal and external threats”. Exactly what it means by this remains unclear. However, it sounds as though access to official information in the areas of critical infrastructure, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and “scientific research” could be restricted in the future – beyond the grounds for denying access that already exist (cf. sec. 3 to 6 IFG). This could then apply, for example, to official information related to the “COVID-19 pandemic”, the disclosure of which has caused a stir on several occasions under the IFG and has put politicians in a difficult position.
In addition, the aim is to “protect our employees from hostility and threats”, which is to be achieved by redacting the names of staff members. Since only a few specific details are currently required to be disclosed – and even then, only for certain employees (cf. sec. 5 IFG) – it can be assumed that the scope of the information to be redacted is to be expanded. It appears that the intention is to redact names across the board; this would significantly hinder or even prevent the comprehension of more extensive documents involving many parties.
4. Access to information on a cost-recovery basis only
The right to access official information – which will already be significantly curtailed as a result of the aforementioned new barriers to transparency – is effectively being undermined by the fact that, in the future, access will be granted only on a cost-recovery basis. While fees for accessing information are currently capped at EUR 500.00, the Federal government intends to remove this limit.
Even under current law, it is common to see that public institutions subject to transparency requirements initially respond to an IFG request with a notice of the costs likely to be incurred in processing the request – so-called “cost notices” – which, even for simple requests for information, are not infrequently already in the range of the maximum permissible fee of EUR 500.00.
A good example of an unjustified fee assessment is a cost notice issued against me in 2016 by the then Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) for an amount of EUR 487.50 regarding a straightforward IFG request concerning the BMJV’s involvement in the composition of various committees in the context of European patent reform; the amount was justified by the persistence with which the request for access had been pursued (!). It took legal proceedings for the BMJV to reduce its fee claim to the fee of EUR 100.00 that had been calculated here from the outset.
Even now, the mere announcement of often exorbitant fees is frequently used to thwart requests for information. If – as intended by the Federal government – the cost-recovery principle is now implemented, meaning the current maximum limit of EUR 500.00 is eliminated, this tactic is likely to be used to an even greater extent. “Cost notices” could then quickly add up to several thousand euros – an amount that many claimants can hardly afford or are unwilling to pay. Those who remain undeterred by this will have to go to court to litigate the amount of reasonable costs.
V. Conclusion
It takes some imagination to come up with the current governing coalition’s idea of selling to citizens the massive curtailment of access to official information under the IFG as a “continued development” of freedom of information. One gets the impression that the abolition of the IFG “in its current form” – originally advocated by the CDU/CSU – is being maintained and is also supported by the SPD, a fact that was initially concealed in the coalition agreement with the empty phrase that the goal was to “reform the IFG in its current form in a way that adds value for citizens and the administration”.
The IFG’s purported adaptation to “current challenges” may refer to the challenges facing the Federal government – which is viewed with increasing skepticism by the public and is steadily losing support – for which a reduction in transparency might, in this regard, prove beneficial. However, this has nothing to do with “making the complicated IFG more understandable for citizens”, nor with providing “added value” for them, nor with increasing transparency. In each case, it achieves the exact opposite.
Regardless of the constitutionality of the proposed restrictions – which is questionable from the outset – in a functioning state abiding by the rule of law, there is no legitimate state interest in curtailing transparency to the point of obscurity and then marketing this as “added value”. On the contrary, a government that acts reliably and in accordance with the rule of law does not need to ever shy away from critical scrutiny by its citizens, but can even generously grant such scrutiny – given its inherent self-interest in the trust of the sovereign that this fosters – because it has nothing to hide. In this respect, the Federal government’s stated intentions are heading in completely the wrong direction from a democratic and constitutional perspective.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the IFG in its current form often does not even go far enough; therefore, in the interest of effectively implementing the right of access granted, an expansion of the existing rules would be warranted. A reference to the sometimes extremely arduous judicial enforcement of an unlawfully denied right of access to official information may suffice here; there have been more than a few instances of court proceedings lasting from three to about four and a half years in first instance (!), which withstood all efforts to expedite the process, including formal complaints regarding delays. These included cases in which the court deemed the denial of access to information unlawful, but the official information in question was “no longer available” at the public institution after several years of proceedings and therefore could no longer be disclosed – while every public institution is very well aware that it can and must grant access only to information in its possession. Even the existing right of access under the IFG is, in many cases, difficult or even impossible for citizens to effectively enforce, at least not without substantial legal representation. Legislative intervention is indeed urgently needed here – but with the aim of effectively implementing citizens’ existing right to access official information under the IFG and their fundamental right to freedom of information under Art. 5 para. 1 sentence 1 GG.
Given the widespread opposition that already exists to the Federal government’s plans for the so-called “further development” of the IFG, it will be very interesting to see how these plans are specifically formulated and justified in the corresponding bill.
If you wish to support my work, you can do so here. Many thanks!