HUMANITARIAN LAW CENTRE v. SERBIA and 10 other applications

Published on 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10551/22 HUMANITARIAN LAW CENTRE against Serbia and 10 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Serbian non-governmental organisation. One of its key missions is bringing those responsible for the war crimes committed in the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1990s to court, unravelling of the state structures that were instrumental in those crimes and campaigning to secure the removal of known perpetrators from state institutions and other positions of authority. Between 2014 and 2016 it lodged eleven requests for access to information with the Ministry of Defence concerning the commanders of different military units which had participated in the armed conflicts in the 1990s. The Ministry rejected all the requests relying on military secret and the protection of the rights and reputation of the persons concerned. In all the cases, the Information Commissioner, the second-instance administrative body, ordered that the information requested be made available to the applicant within five days. The Administrative Court quashed the Information Commissioner’s decisions and upheld the decisions of the Ministry. The Supreme Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court upheld the decisions of the Administrative Court. The applicant organisation complains under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the denial of access to the State-held information of public interest requested by it.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Were the decisions rendered in this case arbitrary and for that reason contrary to Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 60-65, ECHR 2015)?   2.  Has there been an interference with the applicant organisation’s freedom of expression, in particular its right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see, for example, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 157-200, 8 November 2016, and Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, §§ 60-73, 3 February 2022)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Registration date Nationality 1. 10551/22 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 17/02/2022 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 2. 41355/22 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 08/08/2022 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 3. 41362/22 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 08/08/2022 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 4. 10646/23 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 24/02/2023 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 5. 10912/23 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 27/02/2023 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 6. 10915/23 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 28/02/2023 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 7. 11749/23 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 01/03/2023 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 8. 16712/23 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 07/04/2023 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 9. 34060/23 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 28/08/2023 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 10. 12722/24 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 22/03/2024 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian 11. 12739/24 Humanitarian Law Centre v. Serbia 29/03/2024 FOND ZA HUMANITARNO PRAVO 1993 Serbian