Communicated on 9 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 65906/13 Kateryna Sergiyivna AVRAMCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 14 October 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 for an Internet media-outlet “ Ukraiinska Pravda” (Ukrainian Truth).

On 16 March 2012 the applicant filed an information request with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Parliament of Ukraine) asking to provide her with the information about the price and surface of the housing allocated to the acting Members of Parliament at the budget expense. She also asked to provide the names of those Members of Parliament who had received the housing.

By the letter of 29 March 2012 the Head of the Secretariat of the Parliament informed the applicant that 15 apartments (all located in one apartment house at 24, Sribnokilska Str. in the city of Kyiv) of different surface were allocated to the acting Members of Parliament and that the price of a square meter constituted around 5,400 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) at that time. As to the names of those Members of Parliament who had received the housing it was noted that they could not be provided as this constituted confidential information about a person and could not be disseminated without that person ’ s consent.

The applicant challenged that refusal before the courts claiming that she had received an incomplete reply to her information request. She stated that that it was important to know the names of the Members of Parliament who had received the housing in order for the public to be able to control such important budget expenditures.

On 21 May 2012 the applicant ’ s claims were rejected by the Kyiv City Administrative Court. It reasoned that personal data about a person, including the ones name, address and financial status, was confidential information and could not be disseminated. Therefore, the reply this part of the applicant ’ s information request was provided in compliance with the legislation.

The applicant appealed. She stated that the housing at issue belonged to the State property and that the public had interest in knowing the way it was disposed of. She also claimed that the allocation of housing to the Members of Parliament was, according to the legislation, to be done openly and publicly.

By its final ruling of 28 May 2013 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal essentially endorsing the findings of the local court.

In her application form the applicant stated that she intended to write an article on the possible misuse of public funds in that the State housing was allocated to those Members of Parliament who had no need in that (who owned other apartments, were famous businessmen, etc.). Non-provision of the names effectively precluded her from pursuing her intention.

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?