Inspection services are important in ensuring the rule of law as they control the implementation of regulations. The law allows them to take different measures, the most important of which is decreeing to remedy irregularities, thus interfering in the operation of the person subject to inspection. Due to their repressive nature that stems from protecting public interests, they aim at ensuring transparency and openness of their work. Openness and confidentiality of information from inspection procedures are ensured by different institutes and have different restrictions. The information can be accessed by the person subject to inspection or a notice party in the procedure, and they can access files and public information according to the Public Information Access Act with a response according to the Decree on Administrative Operations. Nonetheless, the legislator determined the prevention tasks of inspection services, relating to public awareness-raising. The goal of an inspection control must be preventive awareness-raising with the intention of a long-term prevention of irregularities. Studying the theory, examining decision-making practice and conducting interviews with representatives of information commissioners in Slovenia and Croatia, I compared the legislation of both countries and determined how openness and simultaneous protection of information are ensured. In my paper, I found out that this area is similarly regulated in Slovenia and Croatia, but there are still some key differences in legislation of both countries. This reflects in my hypotheses as none of them is not entirely confirmed. Both countries ensure access and protection of information from inspection procedures.