CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 11 September 2018       FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 75865/11 and 10090/16 CENTRE FOR DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW against Ukraine SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern an alleged denial of access to information of public interest held by public authorities. The applicant is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that was founded in 2005 in Kyiv with the aim of supporting freedom of speech, access to information, development of media law and media reforms in Ukraine and providing related education and training. In 2011 the applicant NGO co-founded a civic movement “Chesno” whose declared task was to advance a fair election process in Ukraine. (a)     Application no. 75865/11 : In May 2010 the applicant NGO tried to obtain from the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (“the Constitutional Court”) copies of some documents, namely legal opinions submitted by several Ukrainian educational institutions, which had been referred to by the Constitutional Court in its decision concerning possibility of MPs’ individual participation in forming a coalition of parliamentary factions in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Having referred to the Rules of the Constitutional Court and Article 38 of the Information Act, the Constitutional Court refused to provide the requested information on the ground that it was accessible only to the parties to the respective proceedings. It further submitted that the educational institutions were the owners of the requested information and it was for those institutions to allow access to their legal opinions. The applicant NGO was unsuccessful in its action against the Constitutional Court’s refusal before the administrative courts, which declined their jurisdiction over the dispute having found that, in the circumstances of the case, the Constitutional Court was to be considered a judicial and not public authority. The final decision was taken by the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine (“the HACU”) on 24 March 2011 and sent to the applicant NGO on 29 March 2011. (b)     Application no. 10090/16: In November 2014, in reply to the applicant’s request, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine (“the CEC”) refused to provide the applicant NGO with copies of full biographies of the heads of political parties running for the 2014 parliamentary elections, having stated that the requested information was confidential in nature and could be fully disclosed only upon consent of the persons concerned. The applicant NGO was provided only with certain data from the requested biographies, which had been published on the CEC web-site in accordance with the Law on Elections of People’s Deputies. The courts of three levels of jurisdiction rejected the applicant NGO’s appeal against the CEC refusal and supported the reasoning advanced by the latter. In doing so, they referred, inter alia , to the Court’s findings in the case of Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 59320/00, §§63-64, 24 June 2004). The final decision was taken by the HACU on 8 September 2015. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards BOTH applications Has there been an interference with the applicant NGO’s freedom of expression, in particular its 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)? ADDITIONAL QUESTION tO THE PARTIES As regards application no. 75865/11 Did the applicant NGO have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 10, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?