Published on 22 May 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4326/18 Galina Mariova Girginova against Bulgaria lodged on 8 January 2018 communicated on 3 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a journalist. She works at Sadebni Reportazhi ( https://judicialreports.bg/ ), a media website covering the judiciary.

In October 2015 she requested access to the reasons, which had not been made public, of a judgment delivered earlier in 2015 in which the Sofia City Court had acquitted the former Minister of Internal Affairs in a high-profile case concerning the alleged misuse of means of secret surveillance.

In November 2015 the data administrator of the Sofia City Court refused the applicant’s request on the ground that, having consulted the president of the panel which had heard the case, he had established that the reasons for that judgment contained general information about the technical way in which means of secret surveillance had been used rather than merely information about evidence obtained in a concrete case by using such means. This was classified information within the meaning of annex 1 to section 25 of the Protection of Classified Information Act 2002. That was why the judgment had not been published on the Internet, as normally required by section 64(1) of the Judiciary Act 2007.

The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal, inter alia on the basis that it had infringed her constitutional right of access to information. The Sofia City Administrative Court dismissed her claim (see реш. № 718 от 09.02.2016 г. по адм. д. № 12030/2015 г., АС-София-град ).

The applicant appealed on points of law, citing, inter alia , Article 10 of the Convention. On 6 July 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment, holding that access to public information could be restricted in the situations envisaged in the Constitution and the Access to Public Information Act 2000, and that this was by definition proportionate because the choice about what information should not be disclosed had been made by the legislature (see реш. № 8849 от 06.07.2017 г. по адм. д. № 3415/2016 г., ВАС, V о. )

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the refusal to provide her the reasons for the judgment was disproportionate, in particular because the administrative courts did not examine whether that refusal was justified in the particular circumstances and because it was not “necessary in a democratic society” to classify all information relating to the use of special means of surveillance. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the administrative courts did not examine the proportionality of the refusal in the light of the specific facts of the case.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the refusal to provide the applicant the reasons for the judgment in the criminal case against the former Minister of Internal Affairs interfere with her right to freedom of expression, in particular her right to “receive ... information”, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see, generally, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 156-70, 8 November 2016, and compare and contrast Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung v. Austria , no. 39534/07, §§ 35-36, 28 November 2013; Sioutis v. Greece (dec.), no. 16393/14, §§ 27-33, 29 August 2017; Studio Monitori and Others v. Georgia , nos. 44920/09 and 8942/10, § 42, 30 January 2020; and Mitov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 80857/17, §§ 32-34, 28 February 2023)?

2. If so, was the interference “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2? In particular, did the refusal strike a proper balance between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and any countervailing rights or interests?

3. Has there been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts which dealt with the applicant’s claim for judicial review of the refusal to provide her the reasons for the judgment duly examine the proportionality of the measure (compare, on the one hand, Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria , no. 14134/02, §§ 68-70, 11 October 2007, and, on the other, Anchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 38334/08 and 68242/16, § 121, 5 December 2017)?