CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 août 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 210 August-September 2017 Sioutis v. Greece (dec.) - 16393/14 Decision 29.8.2017 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to receive information Refusal of request by a private individual not a party to the proceedings for copy of the judgment: Article 10 not applicable; inadmissible Facts – After reading an Article   on a news website concerning the outcome of defamation proceedings (to which he was not a party) between a Member of Parliament and a businessman, the applicant requested a copy of the court’s decision. His request was refused on the grounds that he lacked a legitimate interest.* In the Convention proceedings the applicant complained of a breach of his right under Article   10 of the Convention to receive information. Law – Article   10: Following the test laid down in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság , the case turned on whether access to the decision in the defamation proceedings was instrumental for the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his freedom to receive and impart information. In making that assessment, the Court had regard to (a)   the purpose of the information request; (b)   the nature of the information sought; (c)   the role of the applicant; and (d)   whether the information was ready and available. (a)     Purpose of the request – The impugned decision was adopted following a public hearing, was publicly pronounced and was accessible to the public at the registry of the court. The applicant’s request concerned merely receipt of a copy of the decision and not access to the text of the decision, which he had not been refused. The applicant, who was not in any way personally concerned by the litigation, based his request on a general interest in being informed, arguing that all decisions should be available to the public and that that would promote the legitimate aims of transparency, accountability and the good administration of justice. However, he did not invoke any specific reason why a copy of the decision was necessary to enable him to exercise his freedom to receive and impart information and ideas to others. (b)     Nature of the information sought – The information, data or documents to which access is sought must generally meet a public interest test in order to prompt a need for disclosure under the Convention. The decision sought concerned litigation between private parties. Although both parties were publicly known, the nature of the information sought did not meet the necessary public interest test in order to prompt a need for disclosure. (c)     Role of the applicant – An important consideration was whether the person seeking access to the information in question does so with a view to informing the public in the capacity of a public “watchdog”. However, unlike the applicants in previous cases in which the Court had found Article   10 to be applicable, the applicant in the instant case did not invoke any special role he might have had in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information. The purpose of his activities could not therefore be said to have been an essential element of informed public debate (contrast with the position in the cases of Társaság , Magyar Helsinki Bizottság and Roşiianu , in which the requests for information were made respectively by an association, an NGO and a journalist. In view of the Court’s findings under (a), (b) and (c), it was unnecessary to determine whether the information sought by the applicant was ready and available. In the circumstances, receiving a copy of the court’s decision was not instrumental to the applicant’s exercise of his freedom to expression. Article   10 did not, therefore, give the applicant the right to obtain a copy or embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the applicant). Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). (See also Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v.   Hungary , 37374/05, 14   April 2009, Information Note   118 ; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v.   Hungary [GC], 18030/11, 8   November 2016, Information Note   201 ; and Roşiianu v.   Romania , 27329/06, 24   June 2014, Information Note   175 ) * Under Greek law (Article   22 §   2 of the Code for the Organisation of Courts), parties to proceedings can receive copies of or extracts from decisions or relevant documents of any set of proceedings, except criminal cases. Third parties can obtain a copy or extract only if they can prove that they have a legitimate interest, which is left to the discretion of the competent judge.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes