CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juin 2014

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 175 June 2014 Roşiianu v. Romania - 27329/06 Judgment 24.6.2014 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Freedom to receive information Failure by authorities to comply with final court orders requiring them to disclose public information to journalist: violation Article 6 Civil proceedings Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Failure by authorities to comply with final court orders requiring them to disclose public information to journalist: violation Facts – At the relevant time, and for the previous six years, the applicant had presented a television programme broadcast on a city’s local channel, which discussed, among other issues, how public funds were used by the municipal administration. With a view to exercising his profession, the applicant contacted the city’s mayor requesting that certain items of information of a public nature be disclosed to him. He submitted three successive requests on various subjects. The mayor replied to the applicant in three laconically worded letters. Considering that these letters did not contain adequate replies to his requests for information, the applicant brought three separate sets of proceedings before the administrative court, attempting, inter alia , to obtain an order instructing the mayor to disclose the information to him. In three separate decisions, the court of appeal allowed the applicant’s requests and ordered the mayor to disclose to him the bulk of the requested information. According to the applicant, the court of appeal’s final decisions remained unenforced, despite his numerous complaints. Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicant had obtained three final judicial decisions ordering the mayor to disclose to him certain information of a public nature. The domestic courts had concluded that letters inviting the applicant to come and obtain photocopies of several separate documents containing information which was open to a variety of interpretations could not possibly be analysed as appropriate execution of the judicial decisions. In addition, the Court was unable to determine whether the documents referred to in those letters did in fact contain the information requested by the applicant, given the Government’s failure to submit the documents to the Court or to send a summary of them. The Court acknowledged that access to a tribunal could not require a State to enforce all judgments in civil cases regardless of their nature and the circumstances. However, the authority in question in this case was part of the municipal administration, which formed one element of a State subject to the rule of law, and its interests coincided with the need for the proper administration of justice. Where the administrative authorities refused or failed to comply, or even delayed doing so, the guarantees under Article 6 enjoyed by the litigant during the judicial phase of the proceedings were rendered devoid of purpose. Furthermore, it was inappropriate to require an individual who had obtained judgment against the State at the end of legal proceedings to then bring enforcement proceedings to obtain satisfaction. Nonetheless, in the present case, the applicant had taken multiple steps to obtain execution of the judicial decisions, by requesting that a fine be imposed on the mayor, by lodging a criminal complaint and even by requesting enforcement of one of the decisions by a bailiff. Moreover, the applicant had never been informed, through a formal administrative decision, of any grounds which would have made it objectively impossible for the authorities to execute the decisions. These factors sufficed to conclude in the present case that, by refusing to enforce the final judicial decisions ordering disclosure to the applicant of information of a public nature, the domestic authorities had deprived him of effective access to a court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 10: There had been an interference in the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression as a journalist. Like the case of Kenedi v.   Hungary , this application concerned the applicant’s access to information of a public nature which was necessary for the exercise of his profession. The applicant had obtained three court decisions granting him access to the information. The applicant had been involved in the legitimate gathering of information on a matter of public importance, namely the activities of the municipal administration. In addition, given that his intention had been to communicate the information in question to the public and thereby to contribute to the public debate on good public governance, the applicant’s right to impart information had been impaired. Equally, there had not been adequate execution of the judicial decisions in question. The municipal authorities had also never alleged that the requested information had been unavailable. The complexity of the requested information and the considerable work that would have been entailed for the municipal authority in compiling it had been referred to solely to explain the impossibility of providing that information rapidly. Having regard to those circumstances, the Government had adduced no argument showing that the interference in the applicant’s right had been prescribed by law, or that it pursued one or several legitimate aims. Accordingly, the Government’s objections had to be dismissed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also: Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v.   Hungary , 37374/05, 14   April 2009, Information Note   118 ; Kenedi v.   Hungary , 31475/05, 26   May 2009, Information Note   119 ; Frăsilă and Ciocîrlan v.   Romania , 25329/03, 10   May 2012, Information Note   152 ; and Youth Initiative for Human Rights v.   Serbia , 48135/06, 25   June 2013, Information Note   164 )   © 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