CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE80B7270 { margin-top:20pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s761D06F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sBBB7DB91 { margin-top:3pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC09BD1C2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sD7F76547 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s91A62531 { width:11.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s220DDE6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6C1699C2 { width:8.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD0578D1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD5295FC2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC3C39E84 { width:5.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5C7BFF12 { width:4.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s699A90BA { width:2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35B94E0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s57F719EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:102.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s8E0B8B88 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF53451E7 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBB31CFFC { width:3.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA98EF83E { width:3.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB90D45C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial } .sC725E288 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .s7DA0DA05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BC83BD2 { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sB9307924 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAD1DAC71 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sADD4F530 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADCD53C { width:135.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } THIRD SECTION CASE OF GIRGINOVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 4326/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom to receive and impart information • Refusal of journalist’s request for access to the reasons for the acquittal of a former Minister of Internal Affairs after the high-profile criminal case against him was classified • Request made for a proper journalistic purpose with a view to carrying out professional duties • Charges related to his alleged failure to supervise the serious misuse of covert surveillance equipment by his subordinates, a matter of considerable public interest due to recurrent scandals relating to such misuse • Compatibility   ratione materiae   • General importance of the publicity of judgments in a democratic society applied even more to the reasons for the acquittal of a high-ranking official of serious criminal charges • Domestic court’s failure to consider other means to attain   aim of maintaining secrecy about the methods and means used to carry out covert surveillance • Interference fell outside State’s margin of appreciation and was beyond what was “necessary in a democratic society” Art 13 (+ Art 10) • Judicial review proceedings brought by the applicant not an effective remedy in the case-circumstances • Requirement to deal with complaint consistently with Court’s case-law principles and assess whether interference “necessary in a democratic society” • Assessment to be carried out with reference to specific facts rather than in the abstract • No other effective remedy   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 4 March 2025 FINAL   04/06/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE FACTS I.   BACKGROUND A.   The applicant’s work as a journalist B.   Criminal case against the former Minister of Internal Affairs C.   Closing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ covert surveillance unit II.   THE APPLICANT’S INFORMATION REQUEST A.   The request and its refusal by the Sofia City Court B.   Proceedings for judicial review of the refusal 1.   At first instance (a)   Course of the proceedings (b)   Judgment of the Sofia City Administrative Court 2.   On appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (a)   Course of the proceedings (b)   Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court III.   THE APPLICANT’S ARTICLE ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST THE FORMER MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK I.   CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS II.   ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT 2000 A.   Scope of application B.   Grounds for the refusal of access to public information C.   Judicial review of a refusal to provide access to public information III.   PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ACT 2002 IV.   NON-PARTY ACCESS TO COURT CASE-FILE MATERIAL V.   PUBLICATION OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS A.   General rules B.   Provisions and case-law relating to judgments in criminal cases VI.   REPORTS TO A SUPERIOR AUTHORITY ABOUT UNLAWFUL ACTIONS OF OMISSIONS BY A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY VII.   INDICATIVE TIMESCALE FOR DECIDING CASES BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS THE LAW I.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Admissibility 1.   Compatibility ratione materiae (a)   General principles (b)   The parties’ submissions on how those criteria are to be applied (c)   The Court’s assessment as to how those criteria are to be applied (i)   First criterion (purpose of the information request) (ii)   Second criterion (nature of the information sought) (iii)   Third criterion (role of the seeker of the information) (iv)   Fourth criterion (whether the information was ready and available) (v)   Conclusion 2.   Compliance with the time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (a)   The parties’ submissions (i)   The Government (ii)   The applicant (b)   The Court’s assessment 3.   Continuing victim status 4.   The Court’s conclusion about the admissibility of the complaint B.   Merits 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Existence of interference with the applicant’s Article 10 rights (b)   Justification for the interference (i)   “Prescribed by law” (ii)   Legitimate aim (iii)   “Necessary in a democratic society” II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Admissibility 1.   Compatibility ratione materiae (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 2.   Compliance with the time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention 3.   The Court’s conclusion about the admissibility of the complaint B.   Merits 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of those principles III.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage B.   Costs and expenses 1.   The applicant’s claim and the Government’s comments on it 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Lawyer’s fees (b)   Translation costs OPERATIVE PROVISIONS In the case of Girginova v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis, President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović, judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 4326/18) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Ms Galina Mariova Girginova (“the applicant”), on 8 January 2018; the decision to give the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) notice of the application; and the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     Following allegations of widespread unlawful covert surveillance conducted by his staff, in early 2015 a former Minister of Internal Affairs was acquitted of criminal charges of knowingly allowing his subordinates to engage in misconduct in public office. The criminal case was classified and heard in private, and the reasons for the acquittal were therefore not published. 2.     A few months later the applicant, a journalist covering the judiciary, sought access to those reasons. Her request was refused by the court, on the basis that those reasons contained technical details about the use of covert surveillance equipment, which was classified information. Her claim for judicial review of that refusal was dismissed. 3.     The main issues in the case are whether (a) the refusal breached Article   10 of the Convention, and whether (b) the applicant had an effective remedy in that respect, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Sofia. She was represented by Mr A. Kashamov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. 5.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Hristova of the Ministry of Justice. BACKGROUND The applicant’s work as a journalist 6 .     The applicant is a journalist. She works at Sadebni Reportazhi (https://judicialreports.bg/), an online media organisation covering the judiciary. Criminal case against the former Minister of Internal Affairs 7 .     In February 2013 the government which had been in power since July 2009 resigned, and in March 2013 it was replaced by a caretaker government. 8 .     In March 2013 a former Prime Minister passed on to the prosecuting authorities an anonymous complaint, allegedly sent to him by post, that when the 2009-13 Government had been in power a taskforce from the covert surveillance unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs had unlawfully subjected many politicians, judges and businesspeople to covert surveillance. 9 .     In April 2013 three heads of unit from that Ministry were charged with misconduct in public office by a person subject to military law, contrary to Article 387 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code (“the Code”) – which is a lex specialis in relation to the general offence of misconduct in public office under Article 282 of the Code – in connection with that complaint. Later that month the prosecuting authorities announced that they had found evidence that the Minister of Internal Affairs who had been in office in 2009-13 (who   had also been Deputy Prime Minister) had knowingly allowed those heads of unit to commit the offence, contrary to Article 285 of the Code, which makes it an offence for a public official knowingly to allow a subordinate to commit an offence relating to the subordinate’s duties. 10 .     In September 2013 the Chief Prosecutor stated at a media briefing that in the course of their inquiries into the matter the prosecuting authorities had found that 875 telephone lines had been covertly monitored without the requisite authorisation. 11 .     In February 2014 the prosecuting authorities announced that they had indicted the former Minister of Internal Affairs and the three heads of unit from the Ministry. The heads of unit were accused of failing to (a) protect classified information, (b) manage the use of covert surveillance equipment, and (c) ensure that “special means of surveillance” (for a definition of that term in Bulgarian law, see   Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 70078/12, § 11, 11 January 2022 ) would only be used lawfully – all of which was alleged to have amounted to aggravated misconduct in public office by a person subject to military law, contrary to Article 387 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code. The former Minister was accused of knowingly allowing the three subordinates to commit that offence, contrary to Article 285 of the Code. 12 .     In late February 2014 the Sofia City Court referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities, and in April 2015 they preferred an amended indictment. The case was then apparently stayed because the former Minister, as an elected member of Parliament, had immunity from criminal prosecution. In November 2014 the Chief Prosecutor asked the Parliament to lift his immunity, and in response the former Minister waived it. Subsequently, the Sofia City Court proceeded to try the case, which apparently went on throughout the rest of 2014 and early 2015, wholly in private. The court had also already classified the entire case file in April 2014. 13 .     In the meantime, in June 2014 the Parliament amended point (c) of Article 371 of the Code. Article 371 is the provision which defines who may be liable for the offences under Articles 372 to 405 of the Code (offences against military law). The earlier wording of its point (c) said that all public officials employed in the Ministry of Internal Affairs could be liable for such offences. As amended with effect from July 2014, point (c) says that those officials can be liable for such offences only if they are committed in wartime, during active service, or in the course of missions or operations carried out outside the country or in connection with military combat. 14 .     On 29 January 2015 the Sofia City Court acquitted all four accused. Shortly before the hearing at which the court pronounced its judgment, the prosecutors in the case told the journalists outside the courtroom that although they stood by the facts alleged in the indictment, they would ask the court to acquit because the amendment to point (c) of Article 371 of the Code had predetermined the outcome of the case. The position was that following that amendment, the acts alleged against the heads of unit could no longer be characterised as an offence under Article 387, and the former Minister could therefore no longer be found guilty of the related offence under Article 285 (see paragraphs 9 and 11 above). 15 .     It appears to have been expected that the reasons for the Sofia City Court’s judgment would be drawn up later (as is often the case in criminal proceedings in Bulgaria). After pronouncing the operative provisions, the presiding judge told the journalists present outside the courtroom that the amendment to point (c) of Article 371 had not been the only reason for the acquittal, but added that he could give no details as the case was classified. The prosecutors then stated that they would not appeal against the acquittal (the time-limit for doing so was fifteen days from its pronouncement), which therefore apparently became final shortly after that. 16 .     The reasons for the judgment were not published. 17 .     At a media briefing held on 30 January 2015, the day after the acquittal, the Chief Prosecutor said that he supported the prosecutors’ decision not to maintain the charges following the legislative amendment, since the prosecuting authorities followed the law “irrespective of whether it concern[ed] a former Minister ... or any other person”. Closing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ covert surveillance unit 18 .     As a result of, among other developments, the above-mentioned allegations against the former Minister of Internal Affairs, with effect from August 2013 the Parliament closed the covert surveillance unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and transferred its powers to deploy “special means of surveillance” to a newly created Technical Operations Agency under the direct control of the Government. The explanatory notes to the June 2013 Bill which led to those amendments (no. 354-01-19) stated that the change was needed to cut short the numerous abuses of the covert surveillance system under the previous Government, including its use to further “political and business interests”, culminating in “the mechanism for unlawful eavesdropping created and operating in the Ministry of Internal Affairs under the supervision of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Affairs”. THE APPLICANT’S INFORMATION REQUEST The request and its refusal by the Sofia City Court 19 .     On 20 October 2015, about nine months after the former Minister’s acquittal (see paragraphs 14-16 above), the applicant asked the Sofia City Court for the reasons for its judgment. In her request, she specified that she was a journalist with Sadebni Reportazhi (see paragraph 6 above). 20 .     In an internal memorandum drawn up in in response to that request and addressed to the president of the Sofia City Court, the judge who had presided over the panel which had tried the criminal case stated that, by way of exception to the general rule of publicity of judicial decisions (see paragraph 49 below), the reasons for that judgment could not be published, since they contained classified information. That was also grounds to refuse access to them under section 37(1)(1) of the Access to Public Information Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act” – see paragraph 42 below). The case had concerned not just evidence obtained through “special means of surveillance” but the general manner in which such means were being used, including technical details. That was classified information within the meaning of Schedule 1 to section 25 of the Protection of Classified Information Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act” – see paragraph 47 below). 21 .     On 3 November 2015 the administrator of the Sofia City Court refused the applicant’s request under section 37(1)(1) of the 2000 Act (see paragraph   42 below). He stated that since the request concerned information relating to the court’s judicial functions, he had consulted the presiding judge in the case, and quoted his above-mentioned memorandum. On that basis, he concluded that the information sought by the applicant was classified within the meaning of section 7 of the 2000 Act (see paragraph 42 below); the level of classification of the entire case file was “secret” (see paragraph 46 below). That meant that (a) the rule that all judicial decisions were to be published on the court website (see paragraph 49 below) did not apply, and that (b) the information was exempt from disclosure under the 2000 Act. Proceedings for judicial review of the refusal At first instance (a)    Course of the proceedings 22 .     The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal. She described in some detail the background to her information request (see paragraphs 8-16 above), and referred to an article which she had written about it in the meantime (see paragraph 32 below). She went on to cite a 2014 interpretative decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation according to which it was impermissible to conceal the whole judgment in a criminal case even if it concerned “special means of surveillance” (see paragraph 52 below). The applicant also argued that the refusal had infringed her constitutional right of access to information. Under Article 41 of the Constitution and section 37 of the 2000 Act (see paragraphs 33-34 and 42 below), access to information could be refused if it was a State secret, but that limitation was to be construed restrictively and in the light of this Court’s case-law. In particular, it was unclear why it had been necessary to conceal the entirety of the reasons for the acquittal rather than just elements of them. The case had been of considerable public interest, and information about it would ensure transparency in the administration of the criminal law. Moreover, the former Minister of Internal Affairs was a public figure, and the case against him had concerned a sensitive topic – the alleged misuse of “special means of surveillance” by the authorities. 23 .     In the course of the proceedings the applicant asked the Sofia City Administrative Court to direct the respondent to produce the reasons for the former Minister’s acquittal for inspection by the court, which it had power to do under section 41(3) of the 2000 Act (see paragraph 45 below). The court refused the application, saying that all the requisite evidence was already in the case file. (b)    Judgment of the Sofia City Administrative Court 24 .     On 9 February 2016 the Sofia City Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim (see реш. № 718 от 09.02.2016 г. по адм. д. №   12030/2015 г., АС-София-град ). 25 .     It held that since there were special regulations governing how non-parties to a court case could have access to the material in the case file (see paragraph 48 below), the 2000 Act, by its section 4(1) (see paragraph 38 below), did not apply to the applicant’s request. The Sofia City Court had therefore been under no duty to respond to it. There were rules outside the   2000 Act which ensured publicity and transparency in the work of the judiciary, in particular section 64 of the Judiciary Act 2007, which required the online publication of judicial decisions (see paragraph 49 below), and thus made it possible for anyone to check how the courts resolved certain issues. 26 .     Moreover, not all information relating to the judiciary was “public information” within the meaning of the 2000 Act (see paragraph 36 below). For instance, the construction of a legal provision in a given case did not fall within the Act. Access to information of that kind – contained in the reasons for a judgment and touching directly on the way in which the relevant court had administered justice in a given case – was governed by the Judiciary Act 2007 (see paragraph 49 below) and the procedural codes. The applicant’s request was therefore to be refused because the 2000 Act did not apply to it rather than because the information sought by her was exempt under its section 37 (see paragraph 42 below). It had, all the same, been proper for the Sofia City Court to refuse the request expressly, since the relevant authority was under a duty to give a decision even pursuant to a request concerning information falling outside the scope of the 2000 Act. 27 .     At the same time, it could not be overlooked that the applicant’s request for information had been made because the Sofia City Court had not complied with its duty under section 64(1) of the Judiciary Act 2007 and Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 49 and   51 below) to publish the reasons for its judgment. The material in the case file showed that this was because those reasons contained classified information, including a general discussion of the use of “special means of surveillance” (rather than just evidence obtained via such means). The Sofia City Court therefore had to check whether (a) that information did in fact fall within the scope of Schedule 1 to section 25 of the 2002 Act (see paragraph 47 below), and whether (b) all those reasons concerned a State secret and could properly be withheld under the criteria set out in the Supreme Court of Cassation’s 2014 interpretative decision (see paragraph 52 below). There was no indication that the Sofia City Court had carried out such an exercise. The matter – which was to be treated as a report under Article 119 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (see paragraphs 53-54 below) – was therefore to be referred to that court’s president for decision. On appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (a)    Course of the proceedings 28 .     The applicant appealed on points of law against the dismissal of her claim for judicial review. She submitted that the Sofia City Administrative Court had been wrong to hold that the 2000 Act did not apply to her request because of a lex specialis ; that the information which she had sought was not public information within the meaning of the Act; and that judgments were to be seen simply as case-file material. The fact that the reasons for the former Minister’s acquittal had not been published did not mean that access to them could not be sought under the 2000 Act. The applicant also contended that the refusal to provide her with those reasons had been in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, as construed by this Court, and that the upholding of that refusal had been contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. 29 .     The Supreme Administrative Court heard the appeal on 10 May 2017. In his pleadings at the hearing, counsel for the applicant argued, among other things, that the Sofia City Administrative Court had been wrong not to direct the respondent to produce the reasons for the former Minister’s acquittal under section 41(3) of the 2000 Act (see paragraph 23 above and paragraph   45 below). At the close of the hearing the Supreme Administrative Court stated that it would give its judgment after taking time for consideration; it did not refer to the one-month time-limit (laid down in Article 172 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure – see paragraph 55 below) in which an administrative court is normally expected to decide a case which it has heard. (b)    Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court 30 .     In a judgment dated 6 July 2017 ( реш. № 8849 от 06.07.2017 г. по адм. д. № 3415/2016 г., ВАС, V о. ), the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It held that the courts were under a duty to provide access to public information, but that information of the kind requested by the applicant was to be provided in the manner prescribed in the Judiciary Act 2007, which was a lex specialis in that situation and contained a number of rules meant to ensure publicity. Moreover, publicity was not an absolute rule, and could be restricted under the 2000 Act to protect opposing interests, such as the protection of personal data and classified information and national security. One way of doing so was to publish judgments without the reasons for them. The rules governing the issue in Bulgaria were proportionate because they curtailed publicity in relation to the work of the judiciary only when that was justified by the need to protect rights and interests of equal importance. That was fully in line with Article 41 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 33-34 below), and had been given effect with the provisions of the 2000 Act relating to exempt information (see paragraphs   41-42 below). The right of access to public information under the   2000 Act was not absolute, but could be restricted to safeguard the interests that were the object of Article 41 § 2 of the Constitution – which had also been set out in sections 5 and 7 of the Act (see paragraphs 34 and 41-42 below). It was for the legislature alone to say whether certain information was of public interest, and any limitation on access to public information likewise required a legislative determination about the existence of an opposing interest. 31 .     The Government said that the Supreme Administrative Court judgment was made available for consultation at that court on 6 July 2017 and was published on the court’s website on 7 July 2017. In support of their assertions on those two points, the Government produced (a) excerpts from the court’s cause list and calendar for the relevant period, and (b) a screenshot from its electronic case-management system. THE APPLICANT’S ARTICLE ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST THE FORMER MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS 32 .     On 29 October 2015 the online media organisation for which the applicant worked (see paragraph 6 above) published an article she had written entitled “Why does Ts.Ts. need a lawyer when he has his own prosecutor’s office?” The article set out the allegations against the former Minister of Internal Affairs and the case against him (see paragraphs 8-16 above), and suggested that the manner in which the prosecuting authorities had handled the case had not been accidental. In particular, the charges against the former Minister had notably failed to mention the 875 telephone lines put under covert monitoring which had been mentioned by the Chief Prosecutor (see paragraph 10 above), even though it was reasonable to suspect that the information obtained as a result of that surveillance had been used to blackmail the people concerned, which had in turn affected the country’s politics and economy and various judicial appointments and court cases. The fact that the case had been heard in private had prevented the public from learning anything about those issues. It was also striking that after the amendment to point (c) of Article 371 of the Criminal Code, the prosecuting authorities had apparently given no serious consideration to the possibility of charging the heads of units of the Ministry, who had engaged in grave misconduct, with offences under Article 282 of the same Code, even though the differences between Articles 387 and 282 were minimal (see paragraphs   9, 11 and 13-14 above). Nor was there any good explanation why the prosecuting authorities had chosen not to maintain the charges at the last possible moment rather than at any point in the several hearings which had taken place in the autumn of 2014, shortly after the amendment to point (c) of Article 371 was passed. By contrast, in five other cases they had acted differently: following the amendment, they had charged or indicted officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who had previously been charged under Article 387 with other offences in respect of the same acts, and had asked for the charges to be amended in proceedings in the Supreme Court of Cassation in another case. The article concluded as follows: “But let us however go back to the charges against the former interior Minister – is it wholly irrelevant that there was an [IMSI-]catcher [1] with surveillance devices which was roaming uncontrolled around Sofia, while Ts. did not put in place any rules as to supervision? And will we never learn who the 875 persons mentioned by the Chief Prosecutor were who can sue the State for unlawful interference in their private life were? But the most pressing question is: who will hold the Prosecutor’s Office accountable when it tells lies? Is the unlawful wiretapping of citizens in peacetime indeed not an offence? And why exactly were the charges relating to widespread wiretapping made to fail?” RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 33 .     Article 41 § 1 of the 1991 Constitution provides that everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information, but that the exercise of those rights may not be directed against the rights or good name of others, national security, public order, health or morals. 34 .     Article 41 § 2 of the Constitution provides that citizens are entitled to information from the State authorities or bodies on any matter of legitimate interest to them, unless the information is a State secret or a secret protected by law, or affects the rights of others. 35 .     By Article 121 § 3 of the Constitution the examination of cases in all courts must be public unless otherwise provided for by law, and by Article   121 § 4 reasons must be given for judicial decisions. Commenting on those two provisions, the Constitutional Court has stated that by ensuring publicity, the publication of judicial decisions required by section 64 of the   Judiciary Act 2007 (see paragraph 49 below) was meant to reassure the   public   that the courts would remain guarantors of the rule of law (see   реш.   №   7   от   30.06.2020 г. по к. д. № 11/2019 г., КС, обн., ДВ, бр. 62 от   14.07.2020   г. ). ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT 2000 Scope of application 36 .     Section 2(1) of the Access to Public Information Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) defines “public information” as “any information relating to public life in Bulgaria and enabling citizens to form an opinion about the work of the bodies bound to provide such information”. 37 .     The 2000 Act applies to, among other sorts of information, public information created or held by State or local authorities (section 3(1)). 38 .     The right of access to public information is to be exercised in the manner prescribed in the 2000 Act unless a lex specialis provides for another way of seeking, receiving and disseminating such information (section 4(1)). 39 .     The Supreme Administrative Court has consistently held that section   4(1) means that access to prosecutors’ decisions and the material in criminal case files is governed by special provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure and court rules, and that the 2000 Act therefore does not apply to the information contained in them (see реш. № 4649 от 21.05.2004 г. по адм. дело № 11128/2003 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 13485 от 29.10.2012 г. по адм. д. № 15591/2011 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 3888 от 20.03.2013 г. по адм.   д. № 11016/2012 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 4814 от 05.04.2013 г. по адм.   д. № 8373/2012 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 5505 от 19.04.2013 г. по адм.   д.   № 9207/2012 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 7966 от 10.06.2013 г. по адм.   д.   №   15372/2012 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 15814 от 28.11.2013 г. по адм. д. № 5674/2013 г., ВАС, VII о. ; реш. № 17404 от 21.12.2013 г. по адм. д. № 7138/2013 г., ВАС, петчл. с-в ; реш. № 5419 от 17.04.2014 г. по адм. д. № 14213/2013 г., ВАС, VII о. ; реш. № 179 от 08.01.2015 г. по адм.   д. № 5731/2014 г., ВАС, VII о. ; реш. № 352 от 13.01.2015 г. по адм.   д. № 7252/2014 г., ВАС, VII о. ; реш. № 3995 от 08.04.2015 г. по адм.   д. № 9052/2014 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 11752 от 03.11.2016 г. по адм.   д. № 8641/2015 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 2690 от 06.03.2017 г. по адм.   д.   № 14601/2015 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 7603 от 15.06.2017 г. по адм.   д. № 14198/2016 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 14158 от 20.11.2018 г. по адм. д. № 8001/2017 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 420 от 10.01.2019 г. по адм.   д.   № 6228/2017 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 3930 от 18.03.2019 г. по адм.   д.   № 379/2018 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 11711 от 05.08.2019 г. по адм.   д.   № 12928/2017 г., ВАС, V о. ; реш. № 11726 от 05.08.2019 г. по адм. д. № 5997/2017 г., ВАС, V о. ; and опр. № 565 от 18.01.2024 г. по адм. д. № 454/2024 г., ВАС, V о. ). 40 .     That court recently held the same with respect to non-party access to a final court decision in a criminal case: that the matter was not governed by the 2000 Act but by the Code of Criminal Procedure and a specific rule issued by the Supreme Judicial Council – set out in paragraph 48 below (see   опр.   №   1215 от 02.02.2024 г. по адм. д. № 596/2024 г., ВАС, V о. ). Grounds for the refusal of access to public information 41 .     The right of access to public information cannot be exercised so as to put national security at risk (section 5 of the 2000 Act). 42 .     That right cannot be restricted unless the information in issue is classified or is otherwise a secret protected by law (section 7(1) of the 2000 Act). If information falls into one of those categories, that is grounds to refuse access to it (section 37(1)(1)). In cases of that kind, those concerned are to be given access only to such parts of the information as are not affected by the restriction (section 37(2)). 43 .     A decision to refuse access to public information must include the reasons of fact and law for the refusal (section 38 of the 2000 Act). Judicial review of a refusal to provide access to public information 44 .     Refusals to provide access to public information may be judicially reviewed (section 40 of the 2000 Act). If the court finds that a refusal was unlawful, it must set it aside wholly or in part, or vary the decision challenged, and order the respondent authority to provide access to the information which was being sought (section 41(1)). 45 .     When judicially reviewing a decision which refuses access to information because it was classified or otherwise secret, the court may direct the respondent to produce the material underlying its decision for inspection by it (section 41(3) of the 2000 Act). PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ACT 2002 46 .     Section 1(1) of the Protection of Classified Information Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) specifies that classified information comprises (a) State secrets, (b) official secrets, and (c) classified information obtained from another State. By section 3(1), only persons with an appropriate security clearance have access to classified information, on a “need-to-know” basis, unless the Act provides otherwise. Section 28 regulates the different levels of classification; information constituting a State secret falls under the headings “top secret”, “secret” or “confidential” (section 28(2)). Information is marked as “secret” if unregulated access to it might pose a significant threat to the country’s sovereignty, independence or territorial integrity, or to its foreign policy or international relations with implications for national security, or if it might give rise to a risk of significant and potentially irreversible damage, or cause such damage, in the spheres of national security, defence, foreign policy or defence of the constitutional order (section 28(2)(2)). “Top secret” information remains classified for thirty years after it has been created, “secret” information for fifteen years, and “confidential” information for five years (section 34(1)); those periods can be prolonged to up to twice their original length (section 34(2)). After they expire, access to the information can be obtained in the manner prescribed in the 2000 Act (section 34(3)). 47 .     Section 25 of the 2002 Act defines a State secret as “information included in Schedule 1 [to the Act], the unregulated access to which could endanger or harm the interests of the Republic of Bulgaria and which relates to national security, defence, foreign policy, or the protection of constitutional order”. Schedule 1 sets out the categories of information liable to be classified as being a State secret. By point 6 of part II of that Schedule, this includes “[i]nformation about special means of surveillance (technical devices and/or the manner in which they have been used) used in the manner provided for by law”. Until 2013 information obtained as a result of the use of such means (point 8 of part II of Schedule 1, in force until 2013) was also included. NON-PARTY ACCESS TO COURT CASE-FILE MATERIAL 48 .     At the relevant time non-party access to court case-file material was governed by rules issued by the Supreme Judicial Council under section 342 of the Judiciary Act 2007. Rule 73 § 4 of the 2014 Rules on the Administration of the Courts was in force between January 2014 and June 2017 (it was then superseded by an identical provision, Rule 77 § 4 of the 2017 Rules on the Administration of the Courts), and said that non-parties could have access to information in specific court cases in the manner prescribed in the codes of procedure, but only if they had a legitimate interest in doing so: they would have to set out the nature of that interest in a written court application. PUBLICATION OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS General rules 49 .     Since 2009, section 64(1) of the Judiciary Act 2007 has required courts to publish their judicial decisions on their websites immediately after they are delivered, subject to the requirements of the 2002 Act (see paragraphs 46-47 above) and of the legislation on the protection of personal data. An amendment to section 64 which came into effect in November 2017 provided for an exception to the requirement for immediate publication. Under subsection 1, as reworded, and a new subsection 2, judicial decisions in criminal cases which convict and sentence someone or which finally uphold a conviction or sentence are to be published on the court website only after the prosecuting authorities have informed that court that steps have been taken to enforce them. 50 .     Since 2017, all judicial decisions which conclude court proceedings or are capable of being appealed against must also be published immediately in a centralised electronic register (sections 360n and 360o(2) of the Judiciary Act 2007, added with effect from August 2016 and February 2017 respectively). Anyone can access the decisions published in that register (section 360r(2), in force since Februa