CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 August 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30304/22 Petar Plamenov KARDZHILOV against Bulgaria lodged on 13 June 2022 communicated on 18 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, under Article 10 of the Convention, an alleged breach of the applicant’s freedom-of-expression rights as a result of the refusal of the authorities to provide the applicant – a civic activist with long ‑ standing interests in environmental protection and nuclear energy – with information of public interest (a report of the Minister of Energy) which had served as a basis for a decision of the authorities in respect of expanding a nuclear power plant. On 20 January 2021 the Council of Ministers adopted a decision approving a report justifying the need to build a seventh unit at the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant using equipment originally intended for another nuclear project (“Report of the Minister of Energy on the actions taken and the results of the study on the possibilities for building new nuclear capacity at the approved site no. 2 at Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in the context of achieving the European Union’s climate neutrality goals by 2050 and diversification of energy resources”). The decision to approve the report was accompanied by a statement from the Minister of Energy and media publications. On 28 January 2021 the applicant, mandated by a group of expert analysts of the issues surrounding the construction of a new nuclear power plant in Bulgaria, submitted a request for access to the report under the Access to Public Information Act (“APIA”). On 11 February 2021 the Minister of Energy refused to provide a copy of the report and, instead, provided a copy of the publicly available Council of Ministers decision of 20 January 2021 (see above). The Minister of Energy referred to section 13(2)(1) of the APIA, according to which access to official public information may be restricted when it relates to the operational preparation of the authorities’ acts and has no independent significance, and stated that in this case there was no overriding public interest. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings. He argued, inter alia , that in this case the Environmental Protection Act was the applicable law, as being lex specialis , and that it did not provide for a restriction similar to that in section 13 of the APIA. In a final decision of 13 December 2021 the Sofia City Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge. The court concluded that the requested report fell under section 13 of the APIA, as the information in it related to the operational preparation of acts of the authorities and had no independent existence. Furthermore, the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters did not require access to information contained in preparatory acts concerning the environment. The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 13 of the Convention of a breach of his freedom-of-expression rights as a result of his lack of access to public information, of the lack of adequate reasoning in the administrative court’s decision and of the absence of an effective remedy in relation to the above. QUESTION 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 (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v.   Hungary   ([GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 156–170, 8 November 2016; Cangi v.   Turkey , no. 24973/15, §§ 30-37, 29 April 2019, and Guseva v.   Bulgaria , no.   6987/07, §§ 36-38 , 17 February 2015)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary, in terms of Article 10 § 2 (ibid.)?