European Court of Human Rights: Case of Sdruženi Jihoceské Matky v. Czech Republic, Appl. No. 19101/03

See first: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/9/article1 or in German: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/echr-19101-03.htm
IRIS: RECHTLICHE RUNDSCHAU. DER EUROPÄISCHEN AUDIOVISUELLEN INFORMATIONSSTELLE. 2006-9

Hole court decision in French: http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=219&lid=7144&less=false

Further info:

(...)

6. In a July 2006 admissibility decision, however, the Fifth Section of the Court, in an
apparent departure from the Guerra line of cases, held that Article 10 did grant the
applicant, a Czech environmental group, a right of access to documents regarding the
design and construction of a nuclear reactor.(10) The Sdruženi Court referred to the Guerra
and Roche precedents, and noted that “it is difficult to deduce from the Convention a
general right of access to data and documents of an administrative nature.” This
notwithstanding, the Court proceeded to hold that, under the circumstances of the case –
in which the applicant was a party to an administrative proceeding reviewing the
environmental impact of the reactor – the rejection of the applicant’s request for
information amounted to an interference with “its right to receive information” under
Article 10.(11) Such an interference ought to be subjected to the usual test of paragraph 2 of
Article 10, which allows for restrictions of the right to receive information in order to
protect certain enumerated interests, such as national security, public safety, or the rights
of others. As in other contexts, the Members States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation
in striking the balance between the right to information and protected interests.(12)

7. The Sdruženi Court recognized an independent Article 10 right to receive documents held
by public authorities, which does not rely on any other Convention rights or interests. It
nevertheless stopped short of defining the contours of this right, or reconciling its holding
with the Court’s prior case law. The current case gives the Court a renewed opportunity to
clarify these aspects of its jurisprudence, in line with the clear trends of European and
international law.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(10) Sdruženi Jihoceské Matky v. Czech Republic, Decision of July 10, 2006 (Admissibility).
(11) Id., at 10. In the French original: “Dans ces conditions, la Cour admet que le rejet de ladite demande a
constitué une ingérence au droit de la requérante de recevoir des informations.”
(12) Id., at 11. The Court held that, under the facts of the case, the refusal of the Czech authorities to provide the
requested information was justified on the grounds of public safety and commercial confidentiality. In addition,
the requested data were not sufficiently relevant to the administrative proceedings at stake.

Source: http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2?res_id=103453 Brief GERAGUYN KHORHURD PATGAMAVORAKAN AKUMB v. ARMENIA

 

(...)

The decision of 10 July 2006 in the case of Sdruženi Jihoceské Matky v. Czech Republic is important as it contains an
explicit and undeniable recognition of the application of Article 10 in cases of a refusal of a request to have access
to public or administrative documents. The right of access to administrative documents is not an absolute one and can
indeed be restricted under the conditions of Article 10 § 2, which implies that such a refusal must be prescribed by
law, have a legitimate aim and must be necessary in a democratic society. The decision of the Court of 10 July 2006
gives additional support and opens new perspectives for citizens, journalists and NGO’s for having access to
administrative documents in matters of public interest.


Of major importance in this perspective is also Recommendation Rec (2002)2 of the Committee of Ministers of 21 February
2002 on Access to Official Documents guaranteeing a right of access to official documents to any person, without any
discrimination on any ground including national origin. Additionally Article XI of the Recommendation considers
it as a duty of a public authority, “at its own initiative and where appropriate, to take the necessary measures
to make public information which it holds when the provision of such information is in the interest of promoting
the transparency of public administration and efficiency within administrations or will encourage informed
participation by the public in matters of public interest”. The Explanatory Memorandum of the Recommendation
contains the provision that “in order to allow easy access to official document, the public authorities should
provide the necessary consultation facilities, such as appropriate technical equipment, including that making
use of new information and communication technology” (Art. X, Complementary measures).

Source: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_Intergovernmental_Co-operation/MC-S-IS/IGFBlogSubmission_en.pdf

 

The Sdruženi Jihoceské Matky decision

On 10 July 2006, the European Court of Human Rights gave an admissibility
decision in the case Sdruženi Jihoceské Matky v. Czech Republic.29 The case concerned
a refusal to give an ecologist Non-Governmental Organisation access to
documents and plans regarding a nuclear power station. Although the Court decided
that there had not been a breach of Article 10, it explicitly recognized that
the refusal by the Czech authorities was an interference with the right to receive
information. Hence, the refusal had to meet the conditions set forth in Article 10
§ 2. The Court declared the application manifestly ill founded, because the criteria
in § 2 had been met. It considered that the Czech authorities had motivated
their refusal in a pertinent and sufficient way. Next, the refusal was justified for
the protection of the rights of others (industrial secrets), in the interest of national
security (risk of terrorist attacks) and for the protection of health. The Court also
emphasized that the request to have access to essentially technical information
about the nuclear power station did not reflect a matter of public interest. For us,
the crucial point however is the fact that Article 10 was considered to be applicable
in the first place.

Source: Access to State-Held Information as a Fundamental Right under the European Convention on Human Rights
Wouter Hins* & Dirk Voorhoof**

http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hins/EuConst_Hins_Voorhoof.pdf

 

 

[Walter Keim v. Germany]    [Freedom of Information]     [Petitions]     [FOI as Constitutional Right]      [Constitutional complaint]      [Administrative court case]     [Human rights]    [Homepage]