Communicated on 9 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 51010/13 Andriy Anatoliyovych ROMANENKO against Ukraine lodged on 31 July 2013

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 12 May 2011 the applicant filed an information request with the Mayor of Kramatorsk asking to provide him with the copies of the Mayor ’ s and his family members ’ income declarations. It was stated in the request that the information was needed in order to report on the activities of the local authorities.

By the letter of 18 May 2011 the applicant ’ s request was rejected based on Article 6 of the Law on Access to Public Information. According to section 6 of that Article income declarations of i ) candidates for elected posts or persons occupying elected posts and ii) public officials of first and second grades did not belong to information the access to which was restricted. As the Mayor ’ s position was that of the third grade, he did not belong to the local officials whose declarations were public.

The applicant challenged that refusal before the courts claiming that the Mayor ’ s post was an elected one and therefore his declarations were public.

On 9 August 2011 the applicant ’ s claims were granted by the Kramatorsk Local Court of the Donetsk Region which agreed with the applicant ’ s argument. It noted that despite the Mayor holding a third grade post, it was an elected one and thus his declaration should be public.

On 29 September 2011, acting upon the defendant ’ s appeal, the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and dismissed the applicant ’ s claims in full. It reasoned that as the Mayor ’ s post was of third grade in the system of local authorities and not of the central bodies of State power, his declarations were not public.

On 20 February 2013 this judgment was upheld by the High Administrative Court which fully endorsed the appellate court ’ s reasoning.

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?