Here’s a breakdown of the Radchenko v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined a case where a Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Radchenko, complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment. This judgment had ordered the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine to provide him with specific public information regarding air pollution levels and measures taken after a series of environmental incidents in the Kyiv region in 2015. While the domestic court initially ruled in Radchenko’s favor, the Ministry failed to provide the complete information requested. The ECtHR ultimately found that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression), as the full enforcement of the judgment was objectively prevented by the fact that the Ministry did not possess the specific data requested.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The decision begins by outlining the facts of the case, including Radchenko’s initial request for information, the Ministry’s response, and the subsequent court proceedings at the national level.
* It then addresses the scope of the case, specifically the applicant’s attempt to introduce a new complaint under Article 8 (right to private life) at a late stage, which the Court rejected.
* The Court then considers the admissibility of the application, dismissing the Government’s objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* The core of the decision lies in the assessment of whether there was a violation of Article 10. The Court acknowledges that the Ministry’s failure to provide the information constituted an interference with Radchenko’s rights.
* However, the Court emphasizes that the Ministry’s lack of possession of the specific information requested, particularly the comparative data on dangerous gases, made full enforcement of the domestic court judgment impossible.
* The decision also highlights that some relevant information was provided to the applicant, and he was directed to publicly available sources.
* The Court concludes by stating that while there were deficiencies in the Ministry’s handling of environmental information, the applicant’s right of access to information was not disproportionately impaired in this specific case.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that Article 10 does not grant an absolute right to access information held by public authorities. However, such a right can arise when a court order mandates the disclosure of information.
* It clarifies that the enforceability of a court order regarding access to information is contingent on the information being “ready and available.”
* The decision acknowledges the importance of public access to environmental information, particularly in cases involving hazardous activities or events.
* It highlights the need for State bodies to have systems in place for the systematization and dissemination of environmental information.
This decision provides valuable insight into the scope and limitations of the right to access information under Article 10 of the Convention, particularly in the context of environmental matters.
**** This decision relates to the right to access public information in Ukraine.
