Communicated on 27 August 2020
Published on 14 September 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 59690/15
CENTRE FOR THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL TECHNOLOGIES ‘PUBLIC RELATIONS’, TOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 13 November 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged denial of access to information of public interest held by public authorities in reply to a request from the editor-in-chief of the “Judicial-Legal Newspaper” (owned by the applicant company).
In particular, in December 2014 the then Minister of Agricultural Policy and Food was requested to provide the information whether he had resided and/or worked abroad, where, for how long and at which posts. The request was made based, in particular, on the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law on Access to Public Information and the Law on Information. It contained no explanation of its purpose. This request was refused as the information requested was not public.
The applicant company challenged the refusal before the courts; it argued that the requested information was public being closely linked to the fulfilment by the Minister of his functions and that the right of access to such information was also related to the provisions of the anti-corruption legislation.
The local and appellate courts rejected the applicant company’s complaints on 1 April and 4 June 2015. The courts noted that the information requested concerned private life and was therefore confidential; it had no relation to the Minister’s professional activities and did not fall in the public domain. The appellate court also noted that the applicant company had failed to explain how the information requested was important in the public interest according to the criteria established by the domestic law.
The applicant company appealed in cassation essentially repeating its arguments.
On 24 June 2015 the Higher Administrative Court refused to open cassation proceedings into the applicant company’s claims as its arguments did not evidence any violations of material or procedural laws by the lower courts.
Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that the state authorities’ decisions denying its access to the information requested have amounted to an unjustified interference with its freedom of expression, in particular, with its right to have access to public information.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression, in particular its right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016)?
2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy