This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from one of Transparency International’s national chapters. The Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union.
Query
What is the comparative jurisprudence on balancing privacy rights against the public interest in transparency—specifically regarding asset declarations of public officials' family members? Which jurisdictions with robust privacy frameworks nonetheless mandate disclosure of such familial asset data, and what use restrictions (by user category or permitted purpose) do they impose?
Summary
Financial disclosure regimes for public officials are now close to universal, yet public access to what is filed continues to lag well behind the legal duty to disclose — and it is access, not filing alone, that turns a declaration into an accountability tool. This paper examines the balance that courts around the world have struck between transparency and privacy in this field. Drawing on case law from around the world, it identifies a recurring analytical structure: collection, verification, restricted access and unrestricted publication are treated as separate interferences, each requiring its own justification. Particular attention is paid to the extension of disclosure duties to officials' family members, where jurisdictions diverge sharply on how "family" is defined and on whether the duty to inform the state can be separated from the duty to inform the public. The paper closes by considering what use restrictions, if any, may legitimately apply once declarations have been lawfully disclosed.
Main Points
- Financial disclosure regimes are now close to universal, yet public access to what officials file still lags well behind the legal duty to disclose — and it is access to this information, not filing alone, that turns a declaration into an accountability tool.
- Courts have repeatedly recognised that holding public office lowers an official's reasonable expectation of privacy, but that reduced protection does not travel automatically to relatives, who never made the same bargain by taking office.
- A clear hierarchy of interferences is emerging in the case law: collecting data for oversight, verifying it internally, granting access on a demonstrated interest, and publishing it openly online are treated as separate acts, each needing its own justification.
- Extending declaration duties to family members is widely accepted as a way of closing the potential loophole of parking assets with relatives, but jurisdictions define "family" very differently, and vague or open-ended categories (a partner, a "spouse-like relationship") struggle to survive scrutiny once a duty or sanction is attached to them.
- Even where family disclosure itself is legitimate, courts increasingly separate it from publication: naming a partner or publishing an adult relative's finances online has been struck down repeatedly, even in cases that upheld the underlying obligation to disclose.
- Around two-thirds of disclosure regimes require officials to report family interests to the authorities In Europe, however, the UNCAC Coalition’s 2025 mapping found family-member or close-associate information to be publicly available in only 12 of 33 jurisdictions (36%), and even their publication does not necessarily extend to identifying details.
- Rules governing the subsequent use of lawfully disclosed declarations are less developed than rules governing access itself. Where restrictions exist, their compatibility with transparency depends on whether they target specific harms without frustrating legitimate journalistic, civilsociety or public-interest scrutiny.
Authors
Maria Leonor Rodríguez Pratt
Reviewers
Jon Vrushi, Roberto Roca Paz, Maria Constanza Castro (TI)
Date
15/09/2026
