Communicated on 9 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 2843/16 Andriy Anatoliyovych ROMANENKO against Ukraine lodged on 20 December 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns an alleged denial by the State authorities of access to information of public interest in reply to a request from the applicant who was a journalist and worked as deputy editor-in-chief of the newspaper “ Novosti Kramatorska ” (Kramatorsk News).

On 14 May 2013 the applicant filed an information request with the Mayor of Kramatorsk asking to provide him with the copies of the Mayor ’ s and his deputies ’ income declarations as well as some local council ’ s officials ’ declarations.

By the letter of 9 April 2013 the applicant ’ s request was rejected. It was noted in the reply that only information contained in the declarations was of public nature and not the declaration (as a document) itself.

The applicant challenged that refusal before the courts relying both on the law on Access to Public Information and the Law on Prevention and Fight against Corruption according to which the public officials ’ declarations ’ were open to the public. In his application before the Court he also claimed that he needed the copies of the original declarations and not the extracts from them in order to have trustworthy information and avoid manipulations.

After one re-examination of the case, on 30 September 2015 the High Administrative Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal which partly allowed the applicant ’ s claims ordering to disclose the information contained in the financial declarations. The courts, however, concluded that the copies of the originals of financial declarations could not be provided to the applicant as part of the information contained in them (like, for example, the address and the individual tax number) was confidential in nature.

QUESTIONS 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?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?