Skip Navigation
Slovak Republic

Analyze and Evaluate Preliminary Information and Reports on Public Participation in the Process of Drafting and Commenting on Draft Legislation. (SK0120)



Action Plan: Slovak Republic National Action Plan 2017-2019

Action Plan Cycle: 2017

Status: Inactive


Lead Institution: Plenipotentiary of the Government for the Development of Civil Society in cooperation with the Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic and the Minister of Justice

Support Institution(s): NA

Policy Areas

E-Government, Fiscal Openness, Public Participation, Public Participation in Budget/Fiscal Policy

IRM Review

IRM Report: Slovakia Implementation Report 2017-2019, Slovak Republic Design Report 2017–2019

Starred: No

Early Results: Major Major

Design i

Verifiable: Yes

Relevant to OGP Values: Access to Information

Potential Impact:

Implementation i



The National Council of the Slovak Republic adopted Act No. 400/2015 Coll. On lawmaking and on the Col-lection of Laws of the Slovak Republic and on amendments and supplements to certain laws, which entered into force on 1 January 2016 (except Article I, § 2-10 with effect from 1 April 2016). § 7 of the Act lists ob-ligatory elements of the draft law submitted to the inter-ministerial comment procedure. According to the cited provision, the Report on Public Participation in the Drafting of Legislation is a mandatory part of the draft law. Its purpose is to monitor whether legislation has been prepared with public participation, as re-quired by Article 2 (1) of the cited law50 so as to become a functional part of a balanced, transparent and stable legal system of the Slovak Republic compatible with the European Union law and the international legal obligations of the Slovak Republic.
Commitment No. 63: Analyze and evaluate preliminary information and reports on public participation in the process of drafting and commenting on draft legislation.

IRM Midterm Status Summary

THEME - Develop and evaluate policies in a participatory manner
Comm 43, 45, 47, 49, 63, 64

Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Open Government Partnership National Action Plan of the Slovak Republic 2017 – 2019”, ]:

Commitment 43: “Based on a broad dialogue between central government authorities and the civil society, identify public policies that will be created in a participative manner with civil society representatives.”

Commitment 45: “Create public policies identified in accordance with the recommended material "Guidelines for Engaging the Public in Public Policy Making" in cooperation with civil society representatives.”

Commitment 47: “Evaluate identified participatory processes of creation and implementation of public policies and disseminate examples of good practice based on this evaluation.”

Commitment 49: “Propose a recommendation of internal guidelines on the use of free on-line tools in participatory creation of public policies.”

Commitment 63: “Analyze and evaluate preliminary information and reports on public participation in the process of drafting and commenting on draft legislation.”

Commitment 64: “Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the Electronic Collective Petition.”

Start Date:  Not specified  

End Date: 30 June 2019


Context and Objectives

Slovakia ranks high on political participation, associational and organizational rights[Note : Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2018: Slovakia”,  ]. Citizens are free to organize in political parties and movements. However, although everyone holds full political rights, some disadvantaged groups, for instance, of a Roma minority, do not live in conducive conditions to exercise these rights and benefit from them fully. Freedom of assembly is constitutionally guaranteed, and there are no restrictions for CSOs to operate. Nonetheless, the former Prime Minister Robert Fico expressed a hostile position towards them on occasions[Note : ČTK, “Fico chce prinútiť mimovládky, aby zverejnili financie zo zahraničia” (Fico wants to force NGOs to publish their finances from abroad),, (in Slovak).  ]. Therefore, vocal support from the top political level for greater civil society engagement in policy making is not felt in day to day government operation.

Nonetheless, the government has formally committed to advancing participatory policy-making in its several official documents, national action plan included. Participatory policy-making has been a part of all action plans so far[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Open Government Partnership National Action Plan of the Slovak Republic”, and The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Open Government Partnership National Action Plan of the Slovak Republic 2015”, ]. Commitments 43, 45 and 47 were already included in the first[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Open Government Partnership National Action Plan of the Slovak Republic”, ] and second[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Open Government Partnership National Action Plan of the Slovak Republic 2015”,] action plan.  

Civic participation is one of the key OGP values and co-creation should be at the heart of OGP processes[Note : Open Government Partnership, “OGP Participation & Co-creation Standards”,  ]. Therefore, all commitments in this cluster, in particular commitments 43, 45 and 47 are relevant to OGP values and also specific enough to be assessed. If the process of developing policies in a participatory manner and a subsequent evaluation of the process is executed inclusively and professionally, it could have positive spillover on the entire public administration. Therefore, the potential impact of these commitments could be moderate.

Interviewees argued that several conditions must be met to achieve this. A CSO representative with extensive knowledge about participatory policy-making emphasized that processes must be transparent, and information has to be provided at all stages[Note : Interview with Karolína Miková (PDCS), 9 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.         ]. She added that “participants should know why the final version of a policy document is written as it is”. She argued that while it is impossible to reflect preferences of all participants in the policies, they should be kept informed on how their feedback was incorporated. Another interviewee argued that participation should not be exclusive to selected policies only but needs to be embedded in institutional culture more broadly[Note : Interview with Ján Gondoľ (open education and science expert), 5 November 2018, See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.         ]. He pointed to OGP commitments in open data that were developed against a participatory spirit. This example as well as others that interviewees mentioned suggest that there are significant differences in the extent and quality of their participatory processes between agencies[Note : Interview with Karolína Miková (PDCS), 9 November 2018. Interview with Marcel Zajac (Centre for Philanthropy), 5 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.   ]. Therefore, the continuation of these commitments might be particularly beneficial for agencies that haven’t yet embraced participation in their day to day operation.

As for evaluating participatory processes, concerns and reservations about self-evaluation, which were raised in the previous IRM report[Note : Mária Žuffová, Open Government Partnership, “Slovakia Special Accountability Report 2014 - 2015”,], still prevailed. A CSO representative interviewed for this report argued that criteria for evaluating participatory policy-making are counterproductive as they make evaluation a very formalized process[Note : Interview with Karolína Miková (PDCS), 9 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.         ]. Another CSO representative shared the view claiming that obligatory evaluation criteria add to an already existing bureaucratic burden that public servants have to face in their day to day work. Public servants might respond to this obligation by finding strategies how to circumvent it[Note : Interview with Marcel Zajac (Centre for Philanthropy), 5 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.   ].

Commitment 49 to draw up internal guidelines with a view to the use of free online tools in participatory policy-making is very technical in nature and has unclear relevance for open government as such, and therefore is also coded for no potential impact. Though, it might widen the range of means for the public to participate, which might be in line with their everyday use of information and communication technologies. Nonetheless, many of these are commercial services, and thus, the government will not be able to guarantee full control and responsibility for the data.   

The analysis of preliminary information and reports on public participation in the process of drafting and commenting on draft legislation (commitment 63) is important, as it is crucial to know to what extent the public can participate and participates in legislative processes. Based on the findings of such analysis, improvements could be proposed and implemented.

Commitment 64 to analyze the effectiveness of collective e-petitions is important given that not a single e-petition was created since its launch on the national e-government portal,, on 31 December 2015[Note : Collective e-petitions at, (in Slovak). ]. It is crucial to understand why the platform hasn’t been successful and what can be done to encourage its take-up. The previous IRM report[Note : Mária Žuffová, Open Government Partnership, “Slovakia Special Accountability Report 2014 - 2015”,] concluded that non-use of e-petitions either suggests an absence of demand for such a platform due to the saturation of demand by preexisting platforms, or lack of awareness or poor design of the platform. Stakeholders recommended previously reconsidering thresholds and reducing significantly the number of signatures required for the government to consider an e-petition[Note : At the moment, the threshold is 15 000 signatures. ].

Next steps

  • Embed participation in institutional culture across different sectors

The differences in extent and quality of participatory processes between public agencies are significant. While some agencies have more experience with participatory processes, others do not. The differences also exist within public agencies. A CSO representative provided an example of both good and bad practices within the same agency[Note : Interview with Karolína Miková (PDCS), 9 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details. As a good practice example, she stated the National priorities for the Agenda 2030, which resulted from wide participatory processes. As a bad practice example, she mentioned the action plan for transformation of the Horná Nitra region mostly because of the closed nature of processes and a lack of basic information.              ]. During the action plan development, CSO representatives expressed their concerns that engaging CSOs into policy-making processes is often very formal and CSO representatives are often presented with a finished and already decided thing[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, „Správa z regionálnych workshopov k tvorbe Akčného plánu Iniciatívy pre otvorené vládnutie na roky 2016 – 2019“ (Report from regional workshops on the development of the OGP Action plan 2016-2019), (report in Slovak).]. They also complained that working groups or commissions are over-represented by public servants. All these points, added up, require that the government has a more holistic approach to participation. It should not be exclusive to the development of policies that were selected as a part of OGP commitments and should include regular face-to-face meetings with stakeholders, including CSOs. A commitment to civic engagement should be embedded in institutional culture and day to day operation of public agencies and include local as well as national government. Translated into action points, this means that public agencies should inform about their planned activities pro-actively in an open and transparent way using various communication channels to ensure that the message reaches all relevant audiences. They should do so at the earliest stages, not when a draft law or decision is already written, but at the preliminary/green paper stage, where a problem or proposal is identified, the context described, and policy scenarios outlined. Stakeholders should be engaged at this stage, and at each subsequent stage, including when a Regulatory Impact Assessment has been published (ideally, RIA would be produced at each stage).

  • Make CSOs’ engagement easier

Already the previous IRM report[Note : Mária Žuffová, Open Government Partnership, “Slovakia Special Accountability Report 2014 - 2015”,] emphasized that providing different resources for CSOs to participate is a precondition for ensuring inclusive processes. A CSO representative interviewed for this report mentioned that their capacities are strained. However, that said, her organization always joins discussions regarding themes that are crucial for its work, such as FOI legislation. She added that the government should pro-actively explore what would help different CSOs to engage[Note : Interview with Veronika Prachárová (Slovak Governance Institute), 16 November 2018.]. The propositions could vary. The government should introduce a database of interested stakeholders, such as CSOs, who want to be notified of the launch of each process likely to lead to decisions or laws in their area of focus or interest. The information should also be publicly available for those who would prefer not to register. An opportunity to join meetings and discussion via Skype could attract more regional CSOs which do not have financial and time resources to travel through Slovakia for an hour meeting in the capital city etc. In addition, the ministries could produce green papers, explanatory notes or regulatory impact assessments, which will provide condensed key information, as CSO representatives are often time constrained to read full documents. Last but not least, the government could raise awareness of funding opportunities for CSOs.

  • Include an external element in the evaluation of participatory policy making

As stakeholders repeatedly emphasized for this but also previous IRM report, self-evaluation of participatory processes might be insufficient. A CSO representative also argued that criteria for evaluation of participatory processes also create a false impression that “the government has been participating from dawn to dusk while it is not true”. The setup of the evaluation to include the Ministry of Justice and Deputy Prime Minister’s office is positive, so that the evaluation is not carried out by the individual ministry or agency that ran the participatory process. To further strengthen the independence and impartiality of the evaluation, the inclusion of independent external assessor or reviewer is recommended, and the inclusion in the assessment of feedback, for instance in survey format, of the stakeholders who are engaged in the given subject area as to their assessment of the participatory process. An external element is needed for an objective assessment.  

IRM End of Term Status Summary

For details on each commitment, see Slovakia Implementation Report 2017-2019.


  1. Publish Implementation Plans for Regulations

    SK0126, 2019, E-Government

  2. Regularly Publish Government Datasets

    SK0127, 2019, Access to Information

  3. Publish Data on Use of EU Grant Funding

    SK0128, 2019, Aid

  4. Publish Beneficial Ownership Data

    SK0129, 2019, Anti-Corruption

  5. Educational Resources Portal

    SK0130, 2019, Capacity Building

  6. National Open Science Strategy

    SK0131, 2019, Capacity Building

  7. Continuous Education for Participatory Policymaking

    SK0132, 2019, Capacity Building

  8. Report on Public Participation in Lawmaking

    SK0133, 2019, Public Participation

  9. Civil Society - Government Partnerships

    SK0134, 2019, Local Commitments

  10. Legislation Materials Portal

    SK0135, 2019, Access to Information

  11. Monitor Fulfillment of the Next Action Plan

    SK0136, 2019, Public Participation

  12. Open Data Portal

    SK0058, 2017, Access to Information

  13. Submit a Draft Law on Data to the Government.

    SK0059, 2017, Access to Information

  14. Public Administration Employee Training

    SK0060, 2017, Access to Information

  15. Data Publication Standards

    SK0061, 2017, Access to Information

  16. Update Open Data Portal

    SK0062, 2017, Access to Information

  17. Open Data Publication

    SK0063, 2017, Access to Information

  18. Open Data Awareness-Raising

    SK0064, 2017, Access to Information

  19. Survey About Open Data

    SK0065, 2017, Access to Information

  20. Publish Open Data

    SK0066, 2017, Access to Information

  21. Analysis of Open Data

    SK0067, 2017, Access to Information

  22. Open Data Strategy

    SK0068, 2017, Access to Information

  23. Develop Standards for Publicly Available Application Programming Interfaces and Submit Them to the Commission for the Standardization of Information Systems in Public Administration.

    SK0069, 2017, E-Government

  24. Ensure Open Data Publication

    SK0070, 2017, Access to Information

  25. Survey of Public Demand for Application Programming Interfaces

    SK0071, 2017, E-Government

  26. Publish Application Programming Interfaces

    SK0072, 2017, Access to Information

  27. Enable the Disclosure of Source Code and Development Using Open Methods for Newly Developed Plug-Ins and Extensions of Web Browsers and Client Applications.

    SK0073, 2017, Access to Information

  28. Custom-Made Information Systems

    SK0074, 2017, Access to Information

  29. Publish Open Source Software Data

    SK0075, 2017, Access to Information

  30. Study About Open Source Software

    SK0076, 2017, Access to Information

  31. Feasibility Study on NGO Satellite Account

    SK0077, 2017, Access to Information

  32. Define the Minimum Scope and Structure of the Disclosed Data on the Use of European Structural and Investment Funds, the EEA Financial Mechanism, Norwegian Financial Mechanism, the Swiss Financial Mechanism and Subsidy Schemes From the State Budget.

    SK0078, 2017, Aid

  33. Publish Financial Data

    SK0079, 2017, Access to Information

  34. Propose Changes to Central Register of Contracts Regulation

    SK0080, 2017, Anti-Corruption

  35. Create Space for the Publication of Local Self-Government (Municipality) Contracts in a Single Central Repository.

    SK0081, 2017, Anti-Corruption

  36. Establish and Operate a Repository of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic for Storage, Long-Term Archiving and Access to Educational Resources.

    SK0082, 2017, Access to Information

  37. Open Education Resources

    SK0083, 2017, Access to Information

  38. Reach Out to Partners Who Have Provided Educational Resources After 2008 to the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic Or to Its Directly Managed OrGanizations, with a Suggestion to Make Educational Resources Available Under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) Public License.

    SK0084, 2017, E-Government

  39. Enforce Public Licensing

    SK0085, 2017, Education

  40. Make Educational Resources Available in Local Langage

    SK0086, 2017, Education

  41. Ensure Availability of University Textbooks

    SK0087, 2017, Access to Information

  42. Introduce Specific Rules for Open Publication and the Obligation to Provide Free Access of Selected Publicly Funded Publica-Tions

    SK0088, 2017, Access to Information

  43. Analyze the Possibility of Applying Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) Public License As Standard for Selected Works Mandatorily Published in the Central Registry of Theses and Dissertations.

    SK0089, 2017, E-Government

  44. Awareness-Raising About Open Education Resources

    SK0090, 2017, E-Government

  45. Publish the Outcomes of the Approval Process of Educational Resources on the Web-Site of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic.

    SK0091, 2017, Access to Information

  46. To Introduce the Basic Principles of Open Access to Scientific Publications Under a Public License Under the Operational Program Research and Innovation.

    SK0092, 2017, Access to Information

  47. Ensure the Implementation of Public License Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)

    SK0093, 2017, Access to Information

  48. Establish Contact Office for Open Access.

    SK0094, 2017, Access to Information

  49. Establish Conditions for Passportization of Open Research Data Under a Public License and Monitor Its Implementation in Practice.

    SK0095, 2017, Access to Information

  50. Establish and Operate a Repository to Provide Storage, Long-Term Archiving and Ac-Cess to Slovak Scientific and Academic Publications, Research Data and Gray Literature.

    SK0096, 2017, Access to Information

  51. Design Systematic Benchmarking Monitoring Mechanisms for the Measurement and Comparison and Propose Further Analyses Related to Acquiring, Processing and Re-Use of Research Data and Open Access Scientific Publications.

    SK0097, 2017, Access to Information

  52. Raise Awareness About Open Access in Academic Community

    SK0098, 2017, Access to Information

  53. Participate in International Coordination on Open Education Reforms

    SK0099, 2017, Access to Information

  54. Participatory Public Policy

    SK0100, 2017, E-Government

  55. Citizen-Traingin on Public Policy Making

    SK0101, 2017, Capacity Building

  56. Create Engaging Public Policies

    SK0102, 2017, Capacity Building

  57. Government Employee Peer-Exchange

    SK0103, 2017, Capacity Building

  58. Evaluate Identified Participatory Processes of Creation and Implementation of Pub-Lic Policies and Disseminate Examples of Good Practice Based on This Evaluation.

    SK0104, 2017, Capacity Building

  59. Promote Partnership and Dialogue Between Public Authorities, Citizens and NGOs at National, Regional and Local Level in the Area of Participatory Public Policy-Making.

    SK0105, 2017, Capacity Building

  60. Propose a Recommendation of Internal Guidelines on the Use of Free On-Line Tools in Participatory Creation of Public Policies.

    SK0106, 2017, Capacity Building

  61. Create Learning Tools in the Field of Participation.

    SK0107, 2017, Capacity Building

  62. Use Educational Tools About Participation in Formal Education Using Informal Learn-Ing Methods.

    SK0108, 2017, E-Government

  63. Develop Recommendations for Embedding Participatory Processes Into Organiza-Tional Processes, Internal Guidelines and Other Documents for the Needs of Central Government Bodies.

    SK0109, 2017, Capacity Building

  64. Reassess the Implementation of the Publication of Assessments of Judges in Terms of the Clarity and Making Further Analysis Easier

    SK0110, 2017, E-Government

  65. Specify Which Court Decisions Do Not Need to Be Published.

    SK0111, 2017, E-Government

  66. Standardize Submission Requirements for Slov-Lex Portal

    SK0112, 2017, Access to Information

  67. Draft Legislation About the Responsibility of Judges

    SK0113, 2017, E-Government

  68. Draft Legislation to Ensure Public Scrutiny of Judges

    SK0114, 2017, Judiciary

  69. Prepare Legislation That Will Ensure the Publication of the Seat of Office of Individual Prosecutors

    SK0115, 2017, E-Government

  70. Create Draft Legislation to Extend the Right to Recommend Candidates for the Post of Attorney-General.

    SK0116, 2017, Legislation & Regulation

  71. Participatory Analysis of Prosecutor's Affairs

    SK0117, 2017, E-Government

  72. In a Participatory Manner, Analyze the Selection Procedures

    SK0118, 2017, Justice

  73. Awareness-Raising About Anti-Social Activities

    SK0119, 2017, Anti-Corruption

  74. Analyze and Evaluate Preliminary Information and Reports on Public Participation in the Process of Drafting and Commenting on Draft Legislation.

    SK0120, 2017, E-Government

  75. Analyze and Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Electronic Collective Petition.

    SK0121, 2017, E-Government

  76. Identify the Person Responsible for Implementing the Tasks of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019 in the Organization.

    SK0122, 2017, E-Government

  77. Coordinate the Working Group on the Implementation of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019.

    SK0123, 2017,

  78. Develop the Final Evaluation of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019.

    SK0124, 2017, E-Government

  79. Prepare and Submit for the Government of the Slovak Republic the OGP National Action Plan for the Following Period.

    SK0125, 2017, E-Government

  80. List of Open Data Datasets

    SK0023, 2015, Access to Information

  81. Publish Open Data

    SK0024, 2015, Access to Information

  82. Survey of Open Data

    SK0025, 2015, Access to Information

  83. Publish Relevant Open Datasets

    SK0026, 2015, Access to Information

  84. Starred commitment Open Data Publication Strategy

    SK0027, 2015, Access to Information

  85. Grant Scheme Open Data Portal

    SK0028, 2015, Access to Information

  86. Web Portal Promotion Campaign

    SK0029, 2015, Access to Information

  87. Evaluate Grant Funding Open Data Application

    SK0030, 2015, Access to Information

  88. Digital Education Resources

    SK0031, 2015, Access to Information

  89. Map Existing Repositories

    SK0032, 2015, Access to Information

  90. Analyze Procurement Process for Education Resources

    SK0033, 2015, Access to Information

  91. Textbook Procurement Process

    SK0034, 2015, Access to Information

  92. Pilot Procurement Process

    SK0035, 2015, Access to Information

  93. Raise Awareness of Education Resources

    SK0036, 2015, Access to Information

  94. Join Multilateral Activities in Europe and Beyond That Support the Creation, Improvement, Sharing and Re-Use of Open Educational Resources.

    SK0037, 2015, Access to Information

  95. Map Existing Scientific Repositories

    SK0038, 2015, Access to Information

  96. Identify Barriers to Open Data Access

    SK0039, 2015, Access to Information

  97. Submit Analysis of Open Data Publication

    SK0040, 2015, Access to Information

  98. Data Publication Mechanism

    SK0041, 2015, Access to Information

  99. Raise Awareness About Open Access in Academic Community

    SK0042, 2015, Access to Information

  100. Assist Other Countries with Open Access Strategy

    SK0043, 2015, Access to Information

  101. Participatory Policy-Making

    SK0044, 2015, Public Participation

  102. Workshops on Public Involvement in Policymaking

    SK0045, 2015, Capacity Building

  103. Starred commitment Develop Public Policy with Civil Society

    SK0047, 2015, Civic Space

  104. Starred commitment Develop Criteria for Evaluating Participation in Policymaking

    SK0048, 2015, Public Participation

  105. Evaluate Policy Creation

    SK0049, 2015, Public Participation

  106. Map Legislative Environments

    SK0050, 2015, Open Parliaments

  107. Carry Out a Public Campaign to Promote the Collective Electronic Petitions.

    SK0051, 2015, Capacity Building

  108. Publish Evaluation of Justices

    SK0052, 2015, Judiciary

  109. Analyze Publication of Judicial Decisions

    SK0053, 2015, Judiciary

  110. Uniform Reporting of Judicial Decisions

    SK0054, 2015, Judiciary

  111. Publish List of Names of Prosecutors

    SK0055, 2015, Judiciary

  112. Final Evaluation of OGP Action Plan

    SK0056, 2015, Public Participation

  113. Develop Next Action Plan

    SK0057, 2015, Public Participation

  114. Starred commitment Open Data Portal Launch

    SK0001, 2012, Access to Information

  115. Publishing Datasets

    SK0002, 2012, Access to Information

  116. Datasets Mapping

    SK0003, 2012, Access to Information

  117. Data Standards

    SK0004, 2012, Access to Information

  118. Improved Register of Contracts

    SK0005, 2012, Fiscal Openness

  119. Starred commitment Continuous Dataset Publising

    SK0006, 2012, Access to Information

  120. Starred commitment ITMS Dataset

    SK0007, 2012, Access to Information

  121. EU Funds and Subsidies Monitoring

    SK0008, 2012, Fiscal Openness

  122. EU Funds and Subsidies Monitoring – Prepare Tender for Web Application

    SK0009, 2012, Anti-Corruption

  123. EU Funds and Subsidies Monitoring – Portal Launch

    SK0010, 2012, E-Government

  124. Participatory Policy Making

    SK0011, 2012, Capacity Building

  125. Starred commitment Apply Participatory Policy Making

    SK0012, 2012, Public Participation

  126. Lawmaking Public Participation Rules

    SK0013, 2012, Legislation & Regulation

  127. Participatory Policy Making

    SK0014, 2012, Public Participation

  128. Collective e-Petitions

    SK0015, 2012, E-petitions

  129. Collective e-Petitions – Draft Amendment

    SK0016, 2012, E-petitions

  130. OGP Steering Committee

    SK0017, 2012,

  131. Transparency Council and Openess Barometer

    SK0018, 2012, Access to Information

  132. Develop Criteria for Transparency Council and Openess Barometer

    SK0019, 2012, Access to Information

  133. Conduct First Evaluation Using Openess Barometer

    SK0020, 2012, Access to Information

  134. Whistleblowers Protection Act

    SK0021, 2012, Anti-Corruption

  135. 2014-2015 Action Plan Development

    SK0022, 2012,

Open Government Partnership