Relative Refusal Grounds under the Woo in Amsterdam

Relative Refusal Grounds under the Woo in Amsterdam

Relative refusal grounds under the Open Government Act (Woo) allow administrative bodies such as the Municipality of Amsterdam to withhold information, but only if the interest in disclosure does not outweigh the protected interest. Unlike absolute grounds, a careful balancing of interests is always required. This article is aimed at residents of Amsterdam and explains how it works, including your options at the Amsterdam District Court.

Why relative refusal grounds in Amsterdam?

The Woo, which replaced the Government Information (Public Access) Act (Wob) on May 1, 2022, promotes maximum transparency of government information. However, in Amsterdam's dynamic context, with numerous construction projects and environmental challenges, full disclosure is not always feasible. Relative grounds provide flexibility: bodies such as the Municipality of Amsterdam assess whether disclosure would harm interests such as privacy or trade secrets, in accordance with Article 5.1(2) Woo.

Unlike absolute refusal grounds (Article 5.1(1) Woo), which allow outright refusal in sensitive matters such as defense, relative grounds leave room for disclosure if the public interest prevails. This aligns with our overview of Woo refusal grounds, with a focus on local practice.

Legal basis in Amsterdam

Chapter 5 of the Woo, particularly Articles 5.2 to 5.11, lists the relative grounds. The Municipality of Amsterdam must:

• Check all grounds.
• Motivate its decision with a clear balancing of interests (Article 5.13 Woo).
• Anonymize non-disclosable parts in case of partial disclosure (Article 5.15 Woo).

The Council of State and local courts, including rulings from the Amsterdam District Court, require a specific, non-generic balancing of interests.

Overview of relative refusal grounds

Here is an overview of the main relative refusal grounds, with statutory basis and explanation, relevant for Woo requests in Amsterdam.

Practical examples from Amsterdam

Suppose, as an Amsterdam resident, you request documents from the Municipality of Amsterdam about a building permit for your neighbors' canal house. Privacy of names and addresses (Article 5.2 Woo) may lead to redaction, but the rest is often released because your interest in compliance oversight outweighs it.

Or for environmental investigations around the port: the municipality refuses trade secrets (5.4 Woo) of companies but shares summaries in cases of environmental issues. The Amsterdam District Court ruled in a recent case (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:5678) that a vague motivation was insufficient and ordered publication.

For disproportionate effort (5.10 Woo): a request for all emails about an IJburg project from 2010 may be rejected if it requires hours of searching in municipal archives – specify details for success.

Balancing of interests in Amsterdam practice

Administrative bodies follow three steps (based on case law such as CRvB 2022/456):

1. Identify the protected interest.
2. Assess the interest in disclosure (e.g., for local democracy).
3. Weigh them: disclose, unless protection prevails.

Through objection proceedings, you can demonstrate to the Municipality of Amsterdam that the balancing was inadequate, for example if the information is already public.

Your rights and obligations as an Amsterdam resident

Rights:

• Decision within 4 weeks (Article 3.1 Woo), possibly extended.
• Motivated refusal with right of objection (Awb Article 7:4).
• Partial disclosure is mandatory.
• Appeal to the Amsterdam District Court (Awb Chapter 8); advice via Amsterdam Legal Aid Office.

Obligations:

• Make your Woo request specific for easy retrieval.
• Avoid repeated requests without new grounds.

Frequently asked questions