CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 29 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39325/20 Vladimir ŠEKS against Croatia lodged on 26 August 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a well-known politician, who in 2017 sought access to certain documents from the State Archive with a view to writing a book on the creation of the Republic of Croatia. Part of the documents were declassified by a decision of the President of the Republic of Croatia. The remaining part of the documents remained confidential because, pursuant to the opinion of the State Security Council, declassifying them could cause irreparable damage to the independence, integrity and safety of the Republic of Croatia. The Croatian State Archive consequently rejected the applicant’s request to consult those files. The Commissioner for Information rejected the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the State Archive’s decision and the High Administrative Court dismissed his administrative action. The Constitutional Court found the restriction on the applicant’s right of access to information proportionate to the legitimate aim of the protection of the interests of the State. The applicant complains, under Article 10 of the Convention, that the refusal to disclose the documents in question amounted to a breach of his right to access information which he would use in his scientific work of writing a book, and that the domestic courts failed to properly scrutinise the refusal in light of the Convention criteria. He also complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he did not have a fair hearing in that the domestic courts failed to give a reasoned judgment in his case. 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 (cf. Magyar   Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected, given the manner in which the domestic courts examined his case?