CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 23 May 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 27790/18 ASSOCIATION GONG against Croatia lodged on 7 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged denial of access to information of public interest held by public authorities and the right to a fair hearing. The applicant is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) founded in 1997 with the aim of enhancing democratic processes and institutions, developing democratic political culture and encouraging active and responsible participation of citizens in political processes. In 2013 the applicant NGO tried to obtain from the Government a copy of an agreement concluded between the Government and a foreign private law firm concerning legal representation of the Croatian Army generals in the appeal proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The Government refused to provide the requested agreement finding that in 2011 it had been classified as “confidential”, that the reasons to maintain such classification still existed and that its disclosure would harm the State’s interests. The Commissioner for Information quashed the Government’s decision finding that the matter concerned transparency of public spending, that the Government had not specified which State interests would be jeopardized by disclosing the agreement and that, having regard that the appeal proceedings before the ICTY had ended and that the agreement had already been published in part, its classification was no longer justified. The High Administrative Court quashed the Commissioner’s decision finding it sufficient that the Government had examined the justification of continued classification of the agreement, whose assessment it accepted. The Constitutional Court found the restriction on the applicant NGO’s right of access to information proportionate to the legitimate aim. The applicant NGO complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the Government’s refusal to disclose the agreement amounted to a breach of its right to access information of public interest and that the domestic courts failed to properly scrutinise the refusal in light of the Convention criteria. It also complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that it did not have a fair hearing in that the domestic courts failed to make a proper assessment of the case and duly address the main factual and legal arguments. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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)?   2.     Did the applicant NGO have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant NGO’s right to a reasoned decision respected, given the manner in which the domestic courts examined its case?