Communicated on 29 September 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 2703/12
GEORGIAN YOUNG LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION
against Georgia
lodged on 4 January 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), is a legal entity registered under the Georgian law on 1994, with its headquarters situated in Tbilisi. It is represented before the Court by Ms N. Katsitadze and Ms N. Jomarjidze, lawyers practising in Tbilisi.
2. The applicant is a non-profit non-governmental organisation which was established with the aim of protecting human rights, the rule of law and democracy through legal assistance, advocacy and knowledge sharing, monitoring the judiciary and law-enforcement processes in the country.
3. On 15 June 2009 a peaceful picketing of the Tbilisi police headquarters was forcefully dispersed by special police forces. The dispersal resulted in numerous demonstrators having received physical injuries varying from minor to serious nature.
4. The applicant was one of the first non-governmental organisation in the country who publicly requested, the same day, that a criminal enquiry be launched into the allegedly excessive use of force by the police.
5. On 16 June 2009 the Ministry of the Interior published a statement according to which nine police officers had received minor disciplinary sanctions – varying from a reprimand to temporary suspension of official duties – in relation to the incident of 15 June 2009.
6. On the same day, 16 June 2009, the applicant requested the Ministry to inform it of the names of the nine police officers who had received the disciplinary sanctions. No reply followed.
7. On 28 July 2009 the applicant filed with the Ministry a hierarchical complaint about the lack of answer to its previous request for information. Subsequently, by a decision of 20 August 2009, the Deputy Minister of the Interior refused to disclose the information sought by the applicant. She stated that the names of the sanctioned police officers was personal data and could not be made public without the consent of the individuals concerned as well as for security considerations.
8. On 22 October 2009 the applicant lodged a court action against the Ministry. It was dismissed as ill-founded by the Tbilisi City Court and the Tbilisi Court of Appeals on 3 December 2010 and 16 February 2011 respectively. The courts upheld the Deputy Minister’s position in full.
9. On 30 May 2011 the Supreme Court adopted a decision rejecting the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. That final decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2011.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the Ministry of the Interior’s refusal to disclose the names of the police officers who had been sanctioned for the excessive use force during the incident of 15 June 2009.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can Article 10 of the Convention be said, in the light of the factual circumstances of the present case, to guarantee the applicant a right of access to information held by the Ministry of the Interior (compare Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 172, ECHR 2005-X with more recent authorities on the matter, such as Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, no. 37374/05, §§ 26 and 27, April 2009 and Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung v. Austria, no. 39534/07, § 34, 28 November 2013)?
2. In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to receive information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? To what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant’s activities as a non-governmental non-profit organisation relevant to its claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy