Rating Center Serbian v. Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 3. June 2025. brought, and 26. June of the same year announced the decision in the case Rating center Serbia v. Serbia, No. 15419/17.
The decision isbroughtThe three-member committee.
Item refers to alleged rejectiondomestic courts to initiate misdemeanor procedure, at uneven court practice on this issue and non-compliance with the principles of legal security when rejecting the applicant's request. Also, the organization complaints that it was a victim of discrimination in enjoying the right to a fair trial and that there was a violation of the right to receive information. The court rejected the petition asRatione Materiae incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. |
Circumstances Case
On 24. February 2014. The Applicant requested the applicant from the public utility company to submit information on acquired education of persons employed in that company. Of the mentioned company, it was specially asked to disclose the number of its employees who have a high professional, their jobs and the names of higher education institutions within which they graduated. The Applicant's organization requested information for the purposes of "comparative analysis". The answer was not obtained.
The Applicant then submitted a request for initiating misdemeanor proceedings to a misdemeanor court against the director of the public utility company due to the denial of access to information.
On 15. July 2015 years, the misdemeanor court of Požarevac has passed the decision covering the misdemeanor procedure that the request for initiating misdemeanor proceedings were submitted by an unauthorized person.
The misdemeanor court is 8. October 2015 confirmed the first instance solution.
The Applicant then submitted a constitutional court to the constitutional complaint.
The Constitutional Court is 18. October 2016. rejected the Constitutional Complaint of Applicant's organization that the Applicant Organization had no right to initiate misdemeanor proceedings. The Constitutional Court not noticed any other violations of the constitutional rights of the applicant's organization during the subject misdemeanor proceedings.
Complaints Organizations Applicant and Procedures Before Court
The Applicant submitted the applicant to the court 14. February 2017. years.
In the representations, undertaken under Article 6. Paragraph 1. of the Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) at: (1) refusing domestic courts to initiate misdemeanor proceedings; (2) uneven court practice on this issue; (3) disrespect for the principles of legal security by domestic courts when rejecting its request.
Referring to Article 14 of the Convention, the Applicant's organization further complained that the victim of discrimination in enjoying its rights under Article 6 of the Convention.
Finally, the organization complained that there was a violation of its right to receive information as determined by Article 10 of the Convention.
Decision Court
- Article 6, paragraph 1 in connection with Article 14 of the Convention
The Court accepted the government's objection that they alleges the violation of the rights referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1 of the Convention, especially or in connection with Article 14, incompatibleRatione Materiae With the provisions of the Convention, because the goal of the misdemeanor procedure that the applicant was to initiate the director of the public utility company to submit the requested information, which in itself (the right to be prosecuted or punished) does not guarantee. Also, the Court also accepted the applicant that the applicant has not submitted a claim for compensation, and that the misdemeanor procedure was not related to its civil rights and obligations, which follows that Article 6. Paragraph 1. the Convention is not applicable in the case. Finally, when it comes to complaints against Article 14 of the Convention, and bearing not autonomous and concluding the facts of the case under the scope of Article 6, the Court assessed that Article 14 cannot be applied in a specific case.
- Article 10 of the Convention
Considering the complainant's complaints under Article 10 of the Convention not to provide the right to access information in cases where access to information is crucial to the individual's freedom, especially "freedom of receiving information", and when denying access to information represents mixing in that right.
After examining the circumstances of a particular case, the Court stood on the point of view that denial of access to information was stated in its rights determined by Article 10 of the Convention.
The Court further pointed out that when it comes to the purpose of providing information, that this criterion would be fully enough for the applicant to present the abstract point in the sense that certain information should be available as a matter of general transparency principle. The information search engine is obliged to explain the exact purpose of the request by, among other things, how its or its special role in terms of public information is compatible with the nature of the information required and why access to them is crucial to achieving his or her right to freedom of expression. The Court assessed that in this particular case, the organization has been demonstrated in the capacity of higher education in the Republic of Serbia, and that, even if the requested information applied, could not determine that access to the requested information was crucial to achieving The rights of the applicant's organization of expression and that denial was mixing in that right.
The Court therefore concluded that Article 10 shall not apply in a specific case and that the complaint under this Article must be rejected asRatione Materiae incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
The following was presented, the Court rejected the applicant's application in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. Paragraph 3 (s) and 4. Conventions.