PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MØSE

1. I agree that for the reasons set out in the judgment there was no violation of Article 13 but cannot follow my colleagues in finding that Article 10 has been violated (see paragraphs 37 to 48 of the judgment).

2. The general principles concerning freedom of expression are well known and have been summarised , for instance, in Mouvement r aë lien Suisse v . Switzerland [ GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, 13 July 2012. It is also common ground that the press exercises a vital role of “public watchdog” in imparting information of serious public concern. When measures are taken or sanctions imposed by national authorities in such matters, the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for (see, among many authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], n o. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 64, ECHR 1999-III).

3. The Grand Chamber has accepted that when a non-governmental organisation (NGO) draws attention to matters of public interest, it is exercising a public watchdog role of similar importance to that of the press (see Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08 , § 103 , 22 April 2013 ) . I agree with this point of departure. However, whether there is a violation or not depends on a concrete assessment. In Animal Defenders , which concerned the prohibition of paid political advertising on radio and television, the majority did not find a breach of Article 10.

4. At Chamber level, an NGO ’ s role as a watchdog was raised in Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v. La tvia , no. 57829/00, § 42, 27 May 2004; Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom , no. 68416/01, § 89, ECHR 2005-II; and Riolo v. Italy , no. 42211/07, § 63, 17 July 2008 (which related to a researcher in political science writing a newspaper article). The facts in those cases are very different from the present case.

5. As regards access to information, I agree with the initial recapitulation of relevant case law in paragraph 41 of the judgment, including the references to Leander v. Sweden , 26 March 1987, § 74 , Series A no. 116 , and Guerra and Others v. Italy , 19 February 1998, § 53 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I . The majority then refer to Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary , no. 37374/05, 14 April 2009, which concerned access to information by an NGO. In my view, that case does not support a finding of a violation in the present case (see paragraphs 7-8 below).

6. In paragraphs 34-36 of the judgment, reference is made to Dammann v. Switzerland , no. 77551/01, § 52, 25 April 2006; the case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért , cited above, §§ 26 and 27; and Kenedi v. Hungary , no. 31475/05, § 43 , 26 May 2009 . The first judgment concerns the conviction of a journalist who had taken certain preparatory steps to obtain information in alleged breach of the Swiss penal code, and is clearly distinguishable from the present case. Nor is the third judgment comparable: the applicant – a historian – had obtained a court judgment granting him access to certain documents deposited with the Ministry of the Interior. In spite of subsequent court decisions in line with the original judgment, the authorities obstructed his access.

7. As mentioned by the majority (see paragraph 44 of the judgment), the case of Társaság a Szabadságjogokért , cited above, concerned a request by an NGO to be given access to a particular document – a constitutional complaint. The Court found that the refusal of access was in breach of Article 10, taking into account that the information sought was “ready and available” and did not require the collection of any data by the Government (ibid., § 36, with reference to Guerra and Others , cited above, § 53). Moreover, the Court held in that case that private data protection considerations could not justify the interference (ibid., § 37).

8. By contrast, the request made by the applicant association in the present case required the provision of anonymised paper copies of all decisions by the Tyrol Real Property Commission issued over a period of more than five years. The decisions were not in a state to be sent. It appears that the applicant association itself, by requesting anonymised copies, understood that the decisions concerned contained personal data which would have to be removed before they could be made available. The Commission refused the request on the grounds that its fulfilment , even if it were accepted that it fell within the scope of the Information Act, would require substantial resources which would jeopardise the fulfilment of the Commission ’ s other tasks. The Constitutional Court endorsed this line of argument, finding that the Commission would have to compile all the decisions, anonymise them and send paper copies to the applicant association.

9. It is noteworthy that according to the annual report published by the Regional Government, the Commission issued between 65 and 109 decisions per year in the relevant period from 2000 to 2005 (see paragraph 23 of the judgment). The applicant association ’ s request therefore related to several hundred decisions. In my view, there was thus no arbitrariness in the argument that complying with the applicant association ’ s request would have had a negative impact on the fulfillment of the Commission ’ s tasks. I therefore accept that the reasons given for the refusal of the applicant association ’ s request were relevant and sufficient.

10. Lastly, it should be noted that the applicant association is not left completely without any possibility to obtain information about the Commission ’ s decisions. A certain amount of information is available in the Regional Government ’ s annual report. Moreover, the Commission is not an authority of last resort. A complaint against its decisions can be lodged with the Constitutional Court and a collection of the latter ’ s decisions – which, as a rule, contain a summary of the challenged decision – is published in an online database, the Federal Legal Information System. Consequently, the interference with the applicant association ’ s right under Article 10 was also proportionate.

11 . In my view, these considerations lead to the conclu sion that the domestic authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation when refusing the applicant association ’ s request. The fact that all other Regional Real Property Commissions sent out anonymised copies is not sufficient to alter that conclusion.

12. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

[1] For citation purposes, the short title Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung v. Austria should be used.