States should ensure transparency in the management of public affairs.
- Member States shall ensure accountability, professionalism, transparency, and expertise in the public and private sectors.
- State Parties shall implement this Charter in accordance with the following principles: 8. Transparency and fairness in the management of public affairs.
- The preparation and conduct of elections and the announcement of results shall be done in a transparent manner.
- Public service agents shall demonstrate professionalism, transparency and impartiality in the performance of their duties.
- Public service and administration shall make available to users information on procedures and formalities pertaining to public service delivery
- The Court has often underlined the necessity to maintain the political neutrality of those civil servants, judges and other persons in State service who exercise public authority, so as to ensure that all citizens receive equal and fair treatment that is not vitiated by political considerations (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, §§ 41 and 46, ECHR 1999-III; Briķe v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47135/99, 29 June 2000; and Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 58, Series A no. 323).
- Activities undertaken by public security providers during an election should be construed as a public service and be guided by the interests of public order and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The public-service culture in the delivery of security services should be promoted as an approach conducive to enhancing pubic confidence and to facilitating interaction and information exchange between electoral stakeholders and the security services.
- The core idea behind transparency, as that term is used in this paper, is that State actors – including actors which are funded or controlled by the State, even if they formally operate at arms length to the three branches of government – should act in an open manner. This includes being transparent about how they operate, about the rules that govern them, about their activities and expenditures, about their operations and about the decisions they take, among other things.
- Open meetings are the logical corollary of providing access to recorded or documentary information. (…) Better practice is to require meetings of governing bodies to be open, albeit subject to closure where this is justified. To achieve this, it is important to define the scope of both governing bodies – normally public decisionmaking bodies such as elected bodies, judicial bodies, planning and zoning boards, educational boards and so on – and meetings – which refers to formal or official meetings convened to conduct public business.
- Law enforcement agencies and personnel should undertake efforts to ensure the availability of information to the public concerning its activities and cultivate a police-public partnership.