Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Girginova v. Bulgaria:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns a journalist’s request for access to the reasons for acquittal of a former Minister of Internal Affairs in Bulgaria after the high-profile criminal case against him was classified. The Court found that the refusal to provide access to the judgment violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court emphasized that even in cases involving national security and classified information, complete concealment of court judgments from the public cannot be justified, and techniques exist to accommodate security concerns without eliminating fundamental procedural guarantees.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court found the case admissible despite government objections regarding time limits and ratione materiae compatibility
– The Court applied four criteria to determine if access to information was instrumental for freedom of expression: purpose of request, nature of information, role of seeker, and availability of information
– The Court found that complete secrecy of judgment reasons was not “necessary in a democratic society” even for national security purposes
– The Court established that judicial review proceedings in Bulgaria did not provide an effective remedy for such information access requests
– The decision awarded costs but no damages as none were claimed
3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that journalists have a right to access court judgments, including in sensitive cases, as part of their role in scrutinizing the judicial process
– Even when national security is involved, courts must consider partial disclosure or redacted versions rather than complete secrecy
– The Court emphasized the special importance of publicity for judgments acquitting high-ranking officials of serious charges
– The decision creates a strong precedent for transparency in judicial decisions while balancing legitimate security concerns
– The Court stressed that effective remedies must include substantive review of necessity and proportionality, not just formal legal compliance
: The decision has implications for Ukraine as it establishes standards for transparency in high-profile criminal cases involving senior officials and national security matters, which is particularly relevant given Ukraine’s ongoing judicial reform efforts and anti-corruption initiatives.
