CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 2024

.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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 6 January 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2266/23 NVO MANS against Montenegro and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant being denied access to certain information held by various public authorities. The applicant is a well-known Montenegrin non-governmental organisation. It requested information concerning: (i) an audio recording of a specific Government session; (ii) specific tax-related information; (iii) information relating to the construction of a motorway in Montenegro; (iv) notifications to persons in respect of whom secret surveillance measures were ordered for criminal offences of organised crime; and (v) information about all the contracts a specific State prosecutor and her husband had concluded with third parties during a certain period. The applicant’s requests for access to information were refused on the grounds that: (i) the information in question were classified; (ii) that the relevant bodies did not have them; (iii) that disclosing them would have a harmful effect on persons involved and would constitute unjustified interference with the right to private life of people who also enjoyed the right to presumption of innocence during the proceedings; (iv) and/or that it would constitute a serious breach of notary duties. All these decisions were upheld, where relevant, by the Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information, as well as by the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court. All the applicant’s constitutional appeals were dismissed by the Constitutional Court. In all the applications the applicant complains under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention about being denied access to the information in question, that the domestic decisions were not in accordance with law, and that their reasoning was neither relevant nor sufficient. In application no. 26680/24 the applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the arbitrariness of some of the domestic decisions in that they relied on a legal provision which was not in force at the time when the applicant requested access to information and when its request was refused by the Tax Administration. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions relating to all the applications:   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular its right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v.   Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 157-80, 8 November 2016)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? In particular: (a) to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant’s activities relevant to its claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field? (b) was the requested information “ready and available” and/or did they necessitate the collection of data (see   Weber v. Germany   (dec.), no. 70287/11, § 26, 6 January 2015)? Question relating to application no. 26680/24:   2. Having regard to the fact that the domestic bodies relied also on a provision which was not in force when the applicant requested access to information and when the Tax Administration ruled on it, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , De   Moor v. Belgium , 23 June 1994, § 55, Series A no. 292 ‑ A)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year Place of registration Represented by 1. 2266/23 NVO MANS v. Montenegro 30/12/2022 NVO MANS 2000 Podgorica Montenegro Vanja ĆALOVIĆ - MARKOVIĆ 2. 2587/23 NVO MANS v. Montenegro 12/01/2023 NVO MANS 2000 Podgorica Montenegro Vanja ĆALOVIĆ - MARKOVIĆ 3. 13564/24 NVO MANS v. Montenegro 24/04/2024 NVO MANS 2000 Podgorica Montenegro Vanja ĆALOVIĆ - MARKOVIĆ 4. 26680/24 NVO MANS v. Montenegro 17/09/2024 NVO MANS 2000 Podgorica Montenegro Vanja ĆALOVIĆ - MARKOVIĆ 5. 28390/24 NVO MANS v. Montenegro 23/09/2024 NVO MANS 2000 Podgorica Montenegro Vanja ĆALOVIĆ - MARKOVIĆ 6. 30129/24 NVO MANS v. Montenegro 10/10/2024 NVO MANS 2000 Podgorica Montenegro Vanja ĆALOVIĆ - MARKOVIĆ 7. 30130/24 NVO MANS v. Montenegro 09/10/2024 NVO MANS 2000 Podgorica Montenegro Vanja ĆALOVIĆ - MARKOVIĆ