On February 27, 2019, High Council of Justice (HCoJ) granted the appeal of Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) to abolish its administrative act and obligate the person responsible for public information to provide requested information to IDFI.
The Supreme Court of Georgia granted the appeal of IDFI and ruled that official email correspondence sent or received by official email constitutes open public information and should be accessible to anyone interested.
The Court stated that information about inspection and documents regarding inspection of the free industrial zones by the Revenue Service does not represent the tax secret; consequently, the Revenue Service is obliged to fully release the information.
The Supreme Court of Georgia declared the appeal of the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (MOESD) against the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) inadmissible.
Tbilisi Court of Appeals fully satisfied IDFI’s appeal against the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia. Namely, IDF requested the Ministry to disclose the detailed information on administrative expenses.
On the following link please find the summary of the case IDFI vs MIA. The article reviews decisions of Tbilisi City Court, Tbilisi Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Georgia. All three instances of court held MIA responsible for disclosing information on salary supplements and bonuses received by high-ranking officials.
On April 16, 2015, the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) sent a freedom of information letter to the Georgian Revenue Service requesting information on whether the Revenue Service had conducted inspections of Free Industrial Zones (FIZ) in the country. IDFI also requested the reports or protocols prepared by the Revenue Service as a result of these inspections.
IDFI calls on the prosecutor’s office to proactively publish information of high public interest requested by us on its website. Specifically, information on how many statements/complaints were filed to the prosecutor's office from October 1, 2012, to January 31, 2015, how many of them were related to violations committed by public servants, and what action was taken in response.
Summary of the case IDFI vs State Security and Crisis Management Council.
Summary of the case IDFI vs. the Penitentiary Department