Ro
En
Рy
In May 2015, the CIJM addressed to the presidential administration two requests for information. Journalists wanted to know who, and for what merits, had received state decorations from 2001 to that moment. They also requested from the presidential administration information about the candidates for the positions of judge who had been rejected. For that purpose, the CIJM wanted access to the documents sent by heads of state in the period of 2001-2015 to the Superior Council of Magistracy, in which they rejected candidates for the positions of judge, chairman or deputy chairman of court, and candidates for promotion to courts of appeal.
In both cases, the presidential administration refused to provide this information, having made reference to the protection of personal data.
In the first instance, journalists addressed Buiucani Court, which dismissed CIJM’s action. Then, the case was examined by the Court of Appeal, which obliged the presidential administration to issue to journalists only the information on persons who received state decorations.
In the decision of June 29, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the Buiucani Court. The court held that “the information requested by the Center for Investigative Journalism is restricted and access to it is limited, as it is protected by the Law on State Secret. Therefore, the above-mentioned indicate that the information requested in letter no. 20-05 of May 14, 2015 [about judges – editor’s note] contains personal data, access to which is limited, and it is inadmissible to make public the reasons why candidates to the positions of judge were rejected, as it also violates the principle of respect for the rights and reputation of candidates to the position of judge…”
Media Azi asked CIJM Director Cornelia Cozonac to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court. Here is what she said:
Cornelia Cozonac: The Supreme Court’s decision is a disregard for the citizens’ right to information of public interest
„It has been the first trial regarding access to information in the past ten years lost by the Center for Investigative Journalism. In this case, the requested information was of increased public interest, as it was information about the judges whose promotion had been rejected by presidential administration, and given that judges are surrounded by so many suspicions of corruption, increased public interest is normal. It is also in the interest of authorities to make this information public ex officio, so that citizens know what judges are promoted or refused promotion.
A journalistic investigation showed that the judges rejected by the presidential administration for reasons of integrity were promoted in the system by the Superior Council of Magistracy. So the presidential administration cannot refuse to provide this information to us. And the judges who judged the case justified the request of the head of state?
I understand that judges protect themselves – this is how I explain this decision. In the second case, information was about persons awarded with orders and medals of State. If we ask any citizen whether they want to know about those who were awarded state distinctions for special merits to the state, they will give a positive answer. So, that decision was inadequate; it was in fact a disregard for citizens’ right to information of public interest, international legal standards and press freedom, and contrary to democratic principles. Our next step, I think, will be the ECHR, to claim our right of access to public information.”
Foto source: www. cyd.ro
Foto source: www.anticoruptie.md
