Dispute processes
You need to be logged in to get access to the forums. You can do so here
|
Author
|
Message
|
|
Christopher Corbin
|
Saturday 10 May 2008 4:03:47 pm
Dispute processes
The ePSIplus Legal thematic network meeting number 3 held in Ljubljana on the 9 May 2008 considered the PSI Dispute processes within European Member States.
http://www.epsiplus.net/news/psi_disputes_process
The meeting concluded that those Member States that relied on standard Administrative Complaints processes and or the Courts had not implemented the PSI Directive 2003/98/EC had not correctly implemented the Directive neither in the letter of the Directive or the spirit of the Directive. Those Member States that had implemented a dedicated Public Sector Information Regulator such as the Information Commissioner in Slovenia or the UK Office of Public Sector information (OPSI) had implemented the Directive correctly.
However the meeting felt that although Member States could do far more to be proactive with respect to the Directive and to establish a PSI Regulator there was a need for the European Commission to produce and publish a best practice guide as to how Member States should implement the PSI Directive and that this guide should be based on existing good practice in the PSI re-use sector. Furthermore it was felt that the European Commission should closely monitor the implementation of the PSI Directive against the parameters outlined in the best practice guide.
To assist the above process there is a need for the PSI re-use sector to identify the good practices that existed across Europe so that they maybe considered for the implementation guide.
Question 1:
=========
What in your view are the examples of good practice?
The meeting also expressed concern at the level of attendance by Member States at the European Commission organised PSI Group where it was noted that a number of Member States did not even bother to attend. This demonstrated the lack of interest in the PSI Directive and it was felt that there needed to be a reinvigorated marketing drive to encourage Member States to take proactive action with respect to the implementing and complying with the Directive.
Question 2:
=========
Do you believe a concerted marketing campaign led by the European Commission would help?
|
|
Robert Davies
|
Monday 12 May 2008 10:52:31 am
Dispute processes
I am not certain whether member states which have not establishing an independent channel for redress can be deemed not have transposed the Directive effectively. But to me, if transposition was first base, establishing a 'regulator/enforcer' is second base. Without this, it seems unlikely that the Directive can be really effective.
There are relatively few signs of activity in this area. UK (and the range of activities carried out by OPSI) seem to stand out, Slovenia had its inderpendent office and there are signs of activity in France. Processes may exist elsewhere (Scandinavia etc). But for the majority of member states there is nowhere for re-users to turn (other than the courts). The need to negotiate with PSIH and/or ministries in these circumstances (together with the fear of damaging existing supply relationships) is an enormous deterrrent to almost all re-users to pursue complaints.
If there is one area in which the Commission could make an impact by conducting a successful 'campaign', this is it.
Rob
|
