ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Freedom to receive information
Non-enforcement of final court decisions granting to a journalist, the right to receive information of public character of the national authorities: violation
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Enforcement proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Non-enforcement of final court decisions granting to a journalist, the right to receive information of public character of the national authorities: violation
In fact – At the relevant time, the applicant was for six years the presenter of a television program broadcast on a local channel of a city on, inter alia, the issue of the use of public funds by the town Hall. For the exercise of his profession, the applicant made ??representations to the Mayor for the communication of several information of public character. He thus formulated three successive applications for different subjects. The mayor replied tersely to the applicant by three letters. Considering that they do not contain adequate information to its requests for answers, he appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of three separate actions aimed among other things to the conviction of the mayor to transmit that information. Three distinct final decisions the court of Appeal allowed the actions of the applicant and ordered the mayor to communicate to the vast majority of information requested. According to the applicant, the final decisions of the Court of Appeal remained unfulfilled, despite many efforts.
Law – Article 6 – 1: The applicant received three final judgments requiring the mayor to disclose certain information to public information. The domestic courts found that the letters inviting the applicant to withdraw photocopies of several disparate documents containing information likely to various interpretations, could not in any case satisfy the adequate enforcement of judgments. Moreover, the Court is unable to determine whether the documents to which these letters refer contain the information sought by the applicant, the Government fault for having paid the said documents in the file of this application or send a summary.
The Court accepted that the right of access to a court can not compel a State to enforce each civil judgment whatsoever and regardless of the circumstances. However, the authority in question in this case is part of the municipal government, which is an element of the rule of law, his interest in identifying with the proper administration of justice. But if the administration refuses or fails to perform, or delay doing so, the guarantees of Article 6 enjoyed a litigant during the judicial phase of the proceedings lose their raison d’etre. In addition, it is not appropriate to ask a person who has obtained judgment against the State following judicial proceedings, having subsequently engage enforcement proceedings to obtain satisfaction.
However, in this case, the applicant has held several approaches to the enforcement of judicial decisions, requesting the imposition of a fine mayor, by filing a criminal complaint and even requesting enforcement of a decision with a bailiff. Moreover, the grounds that the administration could have invoked to justify an objective impossibility of performance have never been brought to the notice of the applicant through a formal administrative decision. This is sufficient to conclude that, in this case, by refusing to enforce final judicial decisions ordering the disclosure of information of public character to the applicant, the national authorities have no effective access to a court.
Conclusion : violation (unanimously).
Article 10: There has been an interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression as a journalist. Like the case Kenedi c. Hungary, the present application relates to the applicant’s access to information of public character that were necessary in the exercise of his profession. The applicant has received three court decisions guaranteeing access to such information. The applicant sought legitimately to gather information on a topic of general importance, namely the activities of the municipality. In addition, given that his intention was to communicate to the public the information in question and contribute to the public debate on good public governance, the applicant has suffered a violation of his right to impart information. In addition, there was no proper enforcement of the contested judgments. In addition, the city has never argued that the requested information was not available. The complexity of the information requested and the important work required from the city to carry out their compilation were invoked only to explain the failure to provide this information in the shortest time. Having regard to the foregoing, the Government has provided no argument to show that the interference with the applicant’s right was prescribed by law or it pursued one or more legitimate aims. Therefore, there has been to reject the objections raised by the Government.
Conclusion : violation (unanimously).
Article 41: 4 000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage.
(See also: Tarsasag a Szabadsagjogokert Hungary c. , 37374/05, 14 April 2009, Information Note 118 ; Kenedi v. Hungary. , 31475/05, 26 May 2009, Briefing Note 119 ; Frasila Ciocirlan c and Romania. , 25329/03, 10 May 2012, Information Note 152 , and Youth Initiative for Human Rights v. Serbia. , 48135/06, 25 June 2013, note 164 information )
27329/06 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 648, 27329/06 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 803
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1 10-1
Human Rights, Media
Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535178