CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 15 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15005/25 Livio BACCIOCCHI against San Marino lodged on 8 May 2025 communicated on 26 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a request for information by the applicant following criminal proceedings against him. The applicant was found guilty in proceedings which ended by a final appeal judgment of 12 January 2016. Consequent to an indication, by the Judge of Criminal Appeals, that the applicant was entitled to the documentation collected in the investigations undertaken by the Commission of inquiry on organised crime (the outcome of which led to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and others), the applicant asked for this documentation. On 11 September 2020, in the absence of any legislation providing for such access, Parliament refused his request. On 8 January 2021 the applicant lodged administrative proceedings challenging the refusal decision by Parliament. By a judgment of 5 October 2022 his request was declared inadmissible and unfounded in fact and law as no specific law existed to that effect, and while other laws (Law no. 160/2011) provided for access to administrative documents to interested persons, the material requested by the applicant was of a political nature and subject to secrecy. Moreover, the applicant had obtained some relevant documentation from that inquiry in so far as parts of it had been disclosed in the criminal proceedings (including in a published report). This judgment was reversed on appeal by a decision of 1 October 2024 which annulled Parliament’s decision, the latter having been considered unlawful, contrary to law and lacking reasons. The court of appeal concluded that even accepting that this was political material, only the hearings of the Commission of inquiry on organised crime were secret, but not its materials, and this was limited in time (prior to the publication of the relevant report). Moreover, the applicant had a legitimate interest to obtain such documentation, in the light of his right to defend himself as also held by the Judge of Criminal Appeals, and any denial of such documentation, due to security reasons, had to be duly justified and reasoned. The appeal decision was reversed by the Third Instance Judge, who upheld the decision of 5 October 2022, which thus became final on 8 January 2025. The Third Instance Judge considered the principle that ubi lex voluit dixit, ibi noulit tacuit , and that the norms governing such inquiries specifically set out certain rights of access to certain people due to their functions. Thus, had this right been available to all citizens it would have been expressly stated. The applicant complains under Article 10 that he was denied access to information which concerned him.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 10 of the Convention applicable in the present case (see, for general principles, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no.   18030/11, §§ 156-70, 8 November 2016, and for a further example of their application, Studio Monitori and Others v. Georgia , nos. 44920/09 and 8942/10, § 42, 30 January 2020)?   2.     In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference “prescribed by law”, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims mentioned Article 10 § 2, and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság , cited above, § 181)?