Court case BA-1S/27/2022 – Court Ruling (Slovakia, 2025)

On 23 October 2021, an individual submitted an access request to the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic under the Slovak Freedom of Information Act (Act No. 211/2000 Coll.; “Freedom of Information Act”). The request concerned documents exchanged in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Shiksaitov v. Slovak Republic (applications nos. 56751/16 and 33762/17). The request covered all submissions made by the Slovak Republic to the ECtHR, all submissions made by the applicant in those proceedings, and all annexes attached to those documents. The Ministry partially granted the request. It disclosed certain government submissions but anonymised parts of the documents. It refused to disclose the applicant’s complaint in full, parts describing the facts of domestic criminal proceedings, file numbers of domestic cases, information relating to the applicant’s financial claims for just satisfaction, and all annexes attached to the government’s submissions. The Ministry relied mainly on Section 11(1)(d) of the Freedom of Information Act (information relating to court decision-making) and Section 9(1) and (2) of the same Act (protection of personality, privacy, and personal data). The requester appealed within the administrative procedure. He argued that the Ministry had misapplied the statutory exceptions, failed to consider partial disclosure, and did not properly explain which legal grounds applied to which parts of the withheld information. The Ministry dismissed the appeal and upheld its original decision. The requester then brought an action before the Administrative Court in Bratislava, seeking annulment of the Ministry’s decisions and a remittal for new proceedings. The Administrative Court in Bratislava annulled the Ministry’s decision and remitted the case for further proceedings. The court held that the Ministry had partly applied the Freedom of Information Act correctly but had committed a legal error in refusing access to the annexes. The court began by stressing that the right of access to information is a fundamental constitutional right. Public authorities must interpret exceptions narrowly and must always prefer disclosure over non-disclosure. A refusal is lawful only if it is based on law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. The court first examined whether the requested information constituted personal data. Relying on the definition of personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR and Slovak data protection law, the court held that the applicant in the ECtHR proceedings was an identifiable natural person. The requested information therefore constituted personal data, including the applicant’s complaint, descriptions of domestic criminal proceedings, domestic case file numbers, and information about financial compensation claims. The court then balanced the right of access to information against the right to privacy and personal data protection. It found that the applicant in the ECtHR case was a private individual and not a public figure. The proceedings did not concern a matter of public interest. In these circumstances, the protection of personal data prevailed. The court therefore agreed that the Ministry lawfully refused access to the applicant’s complaint, domestic file numbers, factual descriptions of criminal proceedings, and information about financial claims. The court added that the Ministry should have explained this balancing exercise more clearly in its reasoning, but the outcome itself was lawful. However, the court reached a different conclusion regarding the annexes to the government’s submissions. The Ministry had refused to disclose them in full because it was not their originator, held only photocopies, and could not assess whether disclosure was lawful. The court held that this approach violated the Freedom of Information Act. The court explained that possession of copies meant that the information was available to the Ministry. Availability triggered a duty to assess disclosure. If the Ministry was not objectively able to assess whether legal grounds for restriction applied because it was not the originator of the documents, it had to forward the request, in whole or in part, to the competent authority that originated the documents, in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Ministry could not lawfully refuse access solely because it lacked competence to evaluate the documents. The court also found that the Ministry failed to apply the principle of partial disclosure. It did not identify the annexes individually, did not examine whether only parts required protection, and did not explain why complete non-disclosure was necessary. This amounted to a blanket refusal, which the Freedom of Information Act does not permit. Because the refusal relating to the annexes was based on an incorrect legal assessment, the court annulled the Ministry’s decision and returned the case for new proceedings. The Ministry was bound by the court’s legal interpretation and had to reassess the request in line with the duty to maximise access to information.