Madrid, 23 March 2018 – Access Info has welcomed the 22 March 2018 judgment of the General Court of the European Union in the case of De Capitani v Parliament, a ruling in favour of legislative transparency.
The judgement highlighted that the court well internalizes that member states are granted margin of appreciation when balancing the interests of personal data protection and freedom of information. Nevertheless, when the case concerns information of high public interest the court is of the opinion that the member states should take into consideration the importance of public scrutiny and make such information available for the wider public.
A civil servant is accountable to the state and the society in the process of activities carries out in civil service. Accordingly, not carrying out the duties prescribed by law or carrying out unduly might become the cause of disciplinary action against him. The purpose of the article is the comparative-legal analysis of the regulation of disciplinary liability of civil servants based on Georgian legislation and international practice. The article discusses the regulatory norms ass
Decision of the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Commission to refuse information request of an NGO constitutes interference within right to receive and impart information. The complete refusal and commissions choice to hold a monopoly on information, made it impossible for the applicant to carry out its task and is thus not justified as being “necessary in a democratic society” (para. 47).
In the case of Kenedi v Hungary (26 August 2009), the ECtHR found the violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
In the case of Tarsasag a Szabadsagjogokert v Hungary, Decision of the 14 April 2009, the ECtHR ruled that there was the violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
In the case od Timpul Info-Magazine and Anghel v Moldova, Decision of the ECHR, 27 January 2007, the ECtHR found the violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
In the case of Sdruzeni Jiboceske v Czech Republic, Decision of the ECHR, 10 July 2006 the Court decided that the refusal of access to information was justified in the interest of national security (risk of terrorist attack), for the protection of the rights of others (industrial secrets) and for he protection of health in accordance to Article 10(2) of the Convention.