{"id":9312,"date":"2026-11-12T12:57:08","date_gmt":"2026-11-12T11:57:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elsc.support\/?post_type=blog&p=9312"},"modified":"2026-11-12T12:57:10","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T11:57:10","slug":"following-the-paper-trail-freedom-of-information-requests-as-a-tool-for-accountability","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/elsc.support\/nl\/blog\/following-the-paper-trail-freedom-of-information-requests-as-a-tool-for-accountability\/","title":{"rendered":"Following the Paper Trail: Freedom of Information Requests as a Tool for Accountability"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By ELSC Europe work team\u202f

European institutions regularly invoke transparency, accountability and democratic values, yet these commitments are put to the test when their relationships with Israeli public and private entities come under scrutiny. This article reflects on the European Legal Support Center\u2019s (ELSC) use of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to investigate European universities\u2019 cooperation with Israeli institutions. Drawing on experiences in the Netherlands, Italy and Austria, it shows how access to information can provide evidence for advocacy, strengthen collective organising and support demands for institutional accountability. It also examines how delays, restrictive interpretations and broad reliance on exemptions can undermine the right to information in practice. FOI is not a substitute for political action, but it can equip movements with the evidence needed to challenge institutional complicity and demand transparency.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A right across Europe<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Access to information legislation was first developed in Northern European countries and later expanded to almost every state on the continent. Every European country has its own framework for administrative transparency and access to information, which has led to significant differences in legislative scope, procedure, exceptions and enforcement. There have therefore been calls for stronger and more harmonised access to information legislation<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most recently, Austria adopted a new access to information law, which has been in force since September 1, 2025, abolishing governmental secrecy by creating a proactive publication duty for authorities and a right to request information from public bodies. The new Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz \u2013 IFG), enshrines the principle that access to information should be the rule, while confidentiality should be the exception. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, access to information remains subject to restrictions. Legitimate reasons for withholding information, such as the protection of personal data, commercial and trade secrets, national security, and the safeguard of diplomatic relations with foreign states are considered exceptions Yet, these must be interpreted narrowly and not become a blanket justification for secrecy. Most importantly, these exceptions should not be a way for public institutions to avoid scrutiny when disclosure is politically inconvenient. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Secrecy to Accountability: The Strategic Use of Freedom of Information Requests<\/strong><\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Freedom of Information requests allow individuals, journalists, researchers and civil society organisations to scrutinise public institutions and hold them accountable. The information obtained through these requests becomes automatically publicly available, and can be used to inform public debates, mobilise communities, support advocacy, and in some circumstances, initiate legal proceedings.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the Palestine solidarity movement, Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are increasingly used by civil society, and in particular, student movements, to unveil institutional complicity and demand accountability. They can reveal relationships between public institutions and Israeli universities, companies, military-linked entities, and Zionist organisations or other bodies implicated in violations of Palestinian rights. Crucially, FOIs can expose the contradictions in institutions’ public commitments to ethical conduct and their actual practices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A good example is grassroots project Academic Complicity<\/a>, which collects and analyses information on university complicity with colonial Israeli institutions in Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, France and Belgium. This database clearly shows that access to information is not simply a defensive legal mechanism, but a powerful tool that can help movements to disclose evidence, identify targets for political organising, and transform general concerns about complicity into documented and actionable claims.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

FOI requests also provide a good opportunity for coalition building. Requests often require cooperation between students, researchers, lawyers, journalists, and organisers. The process can create new connections within the Palestine solidarity movement and across other movements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Italy, for example, a coalition of the Italian Palestine solidarity organisation Giovani Palestinesi d\u2019Italia<\/a> and the British Palestinian Youth Movement<\/a>, alongside The Weapon Watch<\/a>, a research group active in the anti-war movement, have gathered information on Italian Israeli import and export of weapons and dual-use items in recently published report<\/a>. This demonstrates how access to information can support cross-border organising and help connect local campaigns to wider struggles against militarism, war and complicity in human rights violations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Access to information requests are a potent tool empowering movements through knowledge, building bridges within and between grassroots movements, and developing strategies to move from a defensive to a more proactive approach. By turning suspicions into documented evidence, FOI requests can help movements identify concrete targets for advocacy and organising, challenge institutional practices, and build collective pressure for change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ELSC’s experience with FOIs<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since 2023, calls from academics, students and staff to obtain clear and detailed information about universities\u2019 ties with Israeli universities, institutions and companies have become even louder.  This is particularly urgent in light of growing evidence<\/a> of the Israeli academic and research institutions\u2019 role in systems of colonialism, militarisation, surveillance and the genocide against the Palestinian people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Universities often present themselves as neutral spaces for education and research. Yet their budgets, investments, research partnerships and institutional affiliations have political and material consequences. FOI requests can help scrutinise these relationships and hold universities accountable for their institutional choices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European Legal Support Center has used access to information legislation in different European jurisdictions. It\u2019s first experience in this area was in the Netherlands in 2022.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ordered to comply by the courts \u2013 Universities in the Netherlands<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The main Dutch public universities refused to disclose information requested through FOIs filed by students and staff, in cooperation with the Dutch human rights organisation The Rights Forum, concerning ties between Dutch and Israeli universities and Israeli lobby organisations. The ELSC, together with FOI law expert Tim Staal, supported The Rights Forum in challenging the refusal before the Dutch administrative courts.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December 2023, the court ruled that nine public universities had acted unlawfully, and ordered them to comply with the FOI requests<\/a>. The universities did not appeal, and the documents were subsequently disclosed for further research by activists. The case shows how persistent organising and strategic litigation can turn an initial refusal into a victory for transparency and accountability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In collaboration with the Palestine solidarity community on campus and with the assistance of Expertisecentrum voor Woo-verzoekers SPOON<\/a>, the ELSC filed a filed a Freedom of Information request to TU Delft regarding its ties with the Israeli occupation and genocide in Palestine in August 2025. For about a year, TU Delft failed to meet its deadlines to provide the transparency requested, resulting in a court-imposed deadline and coercive fine.<\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Succeding at Univerities in Italy<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In Italy, the ELSC filed FOI requests to different universities in northern Italy, including the Scuola Superiore Normale di Pisa, the University of Padova, and the three main public universities in Milan: Bicocca University, Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Milano and Politecnico di Milano (the Milan Technical University). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The requests were drafted in collaboration with academics, researchers, staff and students at each university, and have led to different actions and outcomes. The most successful case is that of the Scuola Superiore Normale di Pisa. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2024, the University\u2019s Academic Senate approved a motion calling for research agreements between Israeli and Italian universities to be questioned, particularly in light of Article 11 of the Italian Constitution, which rejects war as a means of resolving international disputes. In July 2025<\/a>, the Senate adopted a further motion calling for a ceasefire and for the public condemnation of Israel’s violations of international law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After an FOI request was filed to determine whether the University was putting its stated commitments into practice. The response revealed that one of its faculties was involved in a Horizon Europe project with two Israeli partners allocated almost \u20ac300,000 in total. Following the disclosure of the requested information, students, researchers and staff mobilised to demand that the Scuola Normale withdraw from the project. In October 2025<\/a> The Scuola Normale Superiore withdrew from the Horizon project, which included the Hebrew University of Jerusalem among its partners. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This outcome was not the result of an FOI request alone, but of information gathering, legal work and sustained mobilisation by students and staff. The request was nevertheless essential: it turned concerns into documented evidence and gave the movement a concrete basis for demanding institutional action. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Putting Austria\u2019s New Transparency Law to the Test<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When Austria\u2019s new law<\/a> on access to information entered into force in September 2025, the ELSC began filing FOI requests with Austrian public universities. The requests covered the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, the University of Applied Arts Vienna, the University of Vienna, the University of Innsbruck, the University of Graz, and the Austrian Academy of Sciences.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As in Italy, the requests were developed in collaboration with researchers, academics, students, staff and activists on the ground. FOI requests are most effective when they respond to local organising priorities and when the information obtained can be used by the communities most directly affected by institutional decisions.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some institutions in Italy and Austria have yet to provide final responses, while other requests remain under assessment in collaboration with local partners. Nevertheless, the process has already revealed recurring obstacles, highlighting the gap between a formal right to information and its practical exercise.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How public administrations obstruct access<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The first obstacle is delay. Public bodies can slow down requests through procedural hurdles, additional requirements and administrative correspondence that consume time and energy. While some requirements may be legally justified, but they can also function as unnecessary barriers that discourage requesters from pursuing their requests.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, most Austrian universities refused to process requests submitted in English.  This requirement may be legally justified on the grounds that German is the language of administrative proceedings and that the relevant administrative documents are themselves in German, yet the issue raises a broader question. Section 7 of the Austrian Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz \u2013 IFG) does not restrict the right to request information to Austrian citizens. Should non-German-speaking requesters therefore face an additional linguistic barrier when exercising a right that is not limited by nationality? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second, and most significant, obstacle is the routine refusal to disclose information in full or in part, on the basis of recurring justifications. As mentioned above, most access to information laws recognise exceptions, but these must be based on legitimate grounds and adequately justified. In Italy, point 5.3 of the National Anti-Corruption Authority\u2019s Guidelines(Linee guida<\/em><\/a> recanti indicazioni operative ai fini della definizione delle esclusioni e dei limiti all’accesso civico di cui all\u2019art. 5, co. 2, del d.lgs. 33\/2013)<\/em> requires the authority to assess exclusions and limitations carefully. In Austria, section 11 of the IFG requires authorities to issue a formal decision when information is denied, allowing the requester to challenge the refusal before a court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Universities, on the other hand, often rely on broad and insufficiently substantiated claims that disclosure would create an excessive administrative burden. Even if a request is genuinely broad, institutions should engage with the requester and discuss how it can be narrowed. Such discussions can only be meaningful if the universities identify and communicate what relevant records they hold. Instead, they often force requesters to submit multiple revised requests without explaining which documents exist or what information can realistically be disclosed. This reverses the intended purpose of access to information laws: requesters are left guessing what records institutions hold, while institutions use that very lack of knowledge as a reason to withhold information altogether. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Universities have also relied on personal data protection and commercial or trade secret exemptions. While personal data protection is important, it does not normally justify withholding an entire document. Access to information legislation generally requires authorities to consider partial disclosure: where only certain information is protected, that information should be redacted and the remainder of the document disclosed. The same principle applies to claims of commercial confidentiality. While mobility agreements, cooperation agreements and research partnerships between public universities and other institutions may contain genuinely confidential information, this does not in itself justify withholding the entire agreement.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In ELSC\u2019s experience, broad reliance on these exceptions to the right of access risks turning legitimate safeguards into a means of concealing entire documents, rather than narrowly protecting the information that genuinely warrants protection. The right of access to information becomes substantially ineffective if institutions can invoke privacy, administrative burden or commercial interests without adequately explaining why partial disclosure, redaction or a more targeted response would not be possible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From defensive requests to accountability<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Recently, the ELSC adopted a strategy of narrowing requests as much as possible, focusing on the most important information and keeping document requests to a minimum. This approach aims to reduce further delays by universities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even so, significant obstacles remain. Universities are aware of their legal obligations to provide the requested information, yet appear to rely on the assumption that requesters will not challenge refusals before the administrative courts, particularly given the costs of litigation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite these obstacles, the ELSC will continue to use access to information as a tool in collaboration with movement partners across different countries. Information is power. Withholding information that should be disclosed by law is not a neutral administrative act: it is an abuse of power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a final point, it is important to emphasise that FOI requests can be submitted far beyond universities. In the wake of the genocide and the rise of fascism, public authorities, ministries, municipalities, public companies, regulatory bodies and EU institutions all make decisions that should be subject to public  scrutiny.  FOI mechanisms can therefore serve as important tools for transparency and accountability across the public sector, extending well beyond academia. They can be used to investigate arms transfers, procurement, policing, migration policy, public funding, lobbying, surveillance and institutional complicity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two useful examples illustrate this broader potential: the case of the journalist Linda Maggiori<\/a> concerning arms trade and genocide logistics in Italy, and the European Ombudsman case<\/a> brought by the ELSC, concerning EU accountability for its role in relation to Israeli settlements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom of Information is not a substitute for political action. But it can make political action more precise, better informed and harder for institutions to dismiss. It gives movements a way to follow the paper trail of power and insist that public institutions be held accountable for their decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n