CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2033AE5A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5D2667E7 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sD654C7F9 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 2 March 2021 Published on 22 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18036/13 EASTERN UKRAINIAN CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INITIATIVES against Ukraine and 13 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant’s complaint, under Article   10 of the Convention, of denial of access to information of public interest held by public authorities in reply to its requests. The applicant is a non-governmental organisation aiming at the protection of the right to free access to public information in the field of spatial planning. In November 2009 (in application no.   38956/15 – in January 2014) the applicant NGO requested a number of municipalities to provide the information regarding their spatial planning, including disclosure of master plans of settlements ( генеральні плани населених пунктів ). It was mentioned in the requests (except the request in application no.   38956/15) that the applicant NGO monitors accessibility of master plans of 70   settlements in Ukraine and the information obtained would be analysed and released to the public. These requests were refused on the ground of restricted access to the information (it was either marked as “for internal use only” or “classified information” or “confidential information”) or due to the inability to copy a vast amount of information (application no.   56744/14).   The domestic courts, acting upon the applicant NGO’s complaints, ruled against it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant NGO’s freedom of expression, in particular its right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article   10   §   1 of the Convention (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016)?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?     APPENDIX No App. no.   Lodged on Application name Authority requested Final decision   18036/13   21/02/2013 Eastern Ukrainian Centre for Public Initiatives Mykolaiv city council Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine (HACU)   21/08/2012   43206/13   19/06/2013 Ternopil city council HACU   25/12/2012   14667/14   22/01/2014 Dnipropetrovsk city council HACU   17/07/2013   14681/14   22/01/2014 Vinnytsya city council HACU   19/07/2013   36985/14   21/04/2014 Donetsk city council HACU   16/10/2013   48140/14   02/06/2014 Simferopol city council HACU   26/12/2013   56744/14   30/07/2014 Rivne city council HACU   24/01/2014   73448/14   13/11/2014 Ivano-Frankivsk city council HACU   12/06/2014   73450/14   13/11/2014 Sumy city council HACU   12/06/2014   2855/15   24/12/2014 Chernihiv city council HACU   26/11/2014   4168/15   24/12/2014 Cherkasy city council HACU   07/08/2014   5067/15   22/12/2014 Odesa city council HACU   25/11/2014   5883/15   24/12/2014 Chernivtsi city council HACU   28/10/2014   38956/15   27/01/2015   Kyiv city council HACU   30/10/2014