CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 June 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6091/16 Hans-Wilhelm SAURE against Germany lodged on 26 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the access of the applicant, a journalist of Bild , a daily newspaper with a large circulation, to information held by the Ministry of Justice of the Land Brandenburg concerning judges and a prosecutor in the Land Brandenburg who had previously worked for the Ministry of Security of the former German Democratic Republic. The application concerns the same subject matter as application no.   78944/12, which was declared inadmissible by decision of the Chamber of 25 August 2015, because the applicant had only exhausted domestic remedies as far as interim measures were concerned and his constitutional complaint concerning the main proceedings was still pending before the Federal Constitutional Court. Following the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 11 December 2015 on that complaint, the applicant lodged the present application.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention read in the light of Article 10 of the Convention due to the length of proceedings concerning the applicant’s right to receive the said information?   3.     Was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?