CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2018

.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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 6 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 72601/13 Sergiy Anatoliyovych LESHCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 15 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged denial of access to information of public interest held by public authorities. The applicant was at the time a journalist known for his active involvement in awareness-raising in Ukraine as regards fight against corruption. In November 2012 he requested the Constitutional Court to grant him access to a constitutional complaint, lodged by some MPs, the Lviv City Council and the Lviv Regional Council, in respect of the Law on the Principles of the State Language Policy. Having referred to Article 6 of the Law on Access to Public Information and to an order by the President of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court refused to provide the applicant with the requested document on the ground that it constituted “restricted access” information. By a final decision of 30 May 2013 the HACU found against the applicant and upheld the reasoning advanced by the Constitutional Court. It further noted that the requested information was accessible only to the parties to the respective proceedings. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the state authorities’ decisions denying his access to the relevant documents have amounted to an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression, in particular, with his right to have access to public information. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 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? (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no.   18030/11, 8 November 2016)?