Facts: The applicant was an non-governmental organization which requested the complaint presented by the Member of the Parliament to the Constitutional Court concerning the changes in the Criminal Code about drug-related offences. The Constitutional Court did not deliver requested information, because the complaint was pending and requested information was not allowed to disclose without consent of the author of the complaint. The national courts decided that the constitutional complaint contained personal data and the access of personal data was not permitted without consent of the individual.
Non-governmental organization submited an application to the ECHR and complained of a violation of its right to receive information of public interest under Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s reasoning: The Courtbroadly interpreted Article 10 and implicitly recognized the right of access to official documents. The Court pointed out that the state authorities should not create obstacles to the gathering of information and ensuaring public dabate on matters of public interest. The Court decided that non-governmental organizations, like media, have the function of social ,,watchdog” and the state should provide for them to have access to official documents.
The Court decided that requested information constituted a matter of public interest and the applicant was involved in the legitimate gathering of information on a matter of public importance. The Court stated that the refusal of delivering a constitutional complaint confirmed the Constitutional Court’s monopoly over certain information of public interest and was an interference with the applicant’s right to receive information.
The Court decided that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society, because the applicant had requested information about the constitutional complaint without the personal data of its author. The Court emphasized that Member of the Parliament had informed the press that he had lodged the complaint and his opinion could be identified with his person, therefore the refusal of the government on the ground of protection of personal data was not reasonable. The Court also considered that opinions of the public figures regarding public matters should not become secret based on their personality rights because it is not justrified from the spirit of the freedom of expression.
The Court stated that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Prepared in the framework of the Open Society Human Rights Internship Grant 2013.
Subscribe to Our News
