[ad_1]
Judge Dalia Višinskienė, who examined the case, said the journalists’ complaint was partially satisfied, but it was established that there is currently no real possibility of restoring the requested audio recording.
“The court decided to recognize that the Registry violated these applicants’ right to information and, more precisely, the right to receive, collect and disseminate information,” D. Višinskienė told reporters.
According to her, said decision was made after taking into account the fact that journalists submitted their application to the registry on time on October 4, in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Vidmantas Balkūnas photo / 15min photo / Protest of journalists and young politicians against the restriction of media freedoms
The judge stressed that the requested information was available to the Secretariat until the afternoon of October 5 at 11 p.m., when it was removed.
“Journalists have the right to receive information within one business day and the Chancellery, having this information at their disposal, had the opportunity to provide this information within one business day, but, as you know, rejections were accepted for not providing this information. “said D. Višinskienė.
The court ruled that the Government had not provided any evidence why journalists were unable to receive information about the Government’s activities.
“In the present case, it is established that the accused [Vyriausybė] made an audio recording of the Government meeting, which he and the information contained therein on the Government’s activities were available to him at the time of the presentation of the applicants’ applications; in the case file, he did not provide evidence that information about the activities of the Government could not be disclosed to the applicants, <...> It should be noted that the denials violated the applicants’ right to receive, collect and disseminate information. As a result, the accused [Vyriausybės] the denials will be recognized as unreasonable and illegal, ”states the court ruling.
Speaking about the unsatisfied request to restore the destroyed sound recording and demanding it from the Government, D. Višinskienė stated that there is currently no real technical possibility to do so.
The Registry had an opportunity to provide this information within one business day, but, as is well known, refusals to refuse to provide this information were accepted, the judge said.
“The courts can only make such decisions, they can draft a resolution that is enforceable. It is not possible to make a decision, the implementation of which would cause another lawsuit and generate other problems,” said the judge.
The Supreme Administrative Court also disagreed with the lower court’s position that the meeting minutes provided to journalists guaranteed applicants’ right to information and the dissemination of correct information.
In the Court’s view, the content of the minutes of the meeting presented to the applicants was very laconic and uninformative, and their desire to obtain information on the comments of government members on the draft Public Information Law could not be considered as a wish. to obtain redundant information.
This court order is final and is not subject to appeal.
Journalists appealed to court when the government refused to provide an audio recording of their meeting. The meeting discussed whether to open the public record data to journalists after the Records Center suddenly refused to provide data to journalists. 15 minutes As far as we know, at this meeting, Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis spoke enthusiastically about freedom of expression and opposed proposals on opening data.
When the journalists asked for the registration, the Government Chancellery replied that it had been destroyed.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the journalists’ complaint, which they appealed.
The journalists who appealed the decision took the position that the provision of information could be restricted only for specific reasons provided by law, i. and. in the case of public security, private personal data problems. These issues were not present at the Government meeting.
In response to a complaint by journalists, the Government explained that it had no legal basis for making, storing, or providing audio recordings of meetings to other persons, and stressed that the law at that time only required the recording of Government meetings.
Prime Minister S. Skvernelis has repeatedly defended this Government position.
“It just came to our attention then. The public’s right to know is not absolute,” S. Skvernelis said in Seimas in response to questions about the record being destroyed in the fall of 2018.
Skvernel stated that the registry would not be restored because it was not provided by law: “There is no reason to restore it.”
After a dispute with journalists, the government initiated amendments to the law, which stipulates that the deliberations of the Cabinet of Ministers are public.
[ad_2]
