IDFI Case Law

1 July 2019 image

Tbilisi City Court Fully Granted the Appeal of IDFI against the National Archives of Georgia

In the decision of April 4, 2019, the Tbilisi City Court fully granted the appeal of the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) against the National Archives of Georgia – LEPL of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia. The court ordered the respondent party to disclose information on the number of applications received with the request of accessing archival documents and relevant decisions taken. The National Archives of Georgia was directed to disclose the information even though they did not process the statistical data requested by IDFI.

11 June 2019 image

Access to Court Decisions – Constitutional Court Grants the Appeal of IDFI

Access to court decisions in Georgia significantly deteriorated from October 2015. The balance between personal data protection and access to public information was disrupted as unconditional priority was given to personal data protection.IDFI found that existing regulation on access to court decisions violated the Constitution of Georgia and filed an appeal at the Constitutional Court of Georgia. On June 7, 2019, the Constitutional Court of Georgia granted the appeal of IDFI.  

6 March 2019 image

High Council of Justice Fully Grants the Appeal of IDFI

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.

7 December 2017 image

Supreme Court of Georgia Declares Official Email Correspondence as Public Information – Legal Analysis by 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.

21 June 2017 image

Free Industrial Zones and Taxation Secret – Court of Appeals Decision on the Case IDFI vs. State Revenue Service

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.

28 February 2017 image

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of IDFI in a Case against the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development

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.

31 August 2016 image

IDFI vs Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia

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.

4 May 2016 image

Case Summary - IDFI vs Ministry of Internal Affairs

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.

23 March 2016 image

Free Industrial Zones and Confidentiality of Tax Information in Georgia (IDFI VS Revenue Service)

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.

17 March 2016 image

Prosecutor’s Office Granted the Appeal of IDFI

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.

First Previous 1 2 3 Last