informaciis Tavisufleba

da

personalur monacemTa dacva

(saerTo sasamarTloebis praqtikis analizi)

Tbilisi2014

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

(Analysis of Practice of Common Courts)

Tbilisi2014

aiwyo da dakabadonda saqarTvelos axalgazrda iuristTa asociaciaSi.

j. kaxiZis q.15 Tbilisi 0102 saqarTvelo(+995 32) 295 23 53, 293 61 01

veb-gverdi: www.gyla.geel-fosta: gyla@gyla.ge

akrZalulia aq moyvanili masalebis gadabeWdva, gamravleba an gavrceleba komerciuli mizniT, asociaciis werilobiTi

nebarTvis gareSe

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------© 2014, saqarTvelos axalgazrda iuristTa asociacia

avtori:

redaqtori:

teq. redaqtori:

gamocemaze pasuxismgebeli:

salome saRaraZe

xaTuna yviralaSvili

irakli svaniZe

Tamar gvaramaZesulxan salaZe

kvleva ganxorcielebulia saqarTvelos axalgazrda iuristTa asociaciis mier proeqtis - “angariSvaldebuli da gamWvirvale mmarTvelobis xelSewyoba saqarTveloSi” - farglebSi, “Ria sazo-gadoebis fondebis” (OSF) - finansuri mxardaWeriT.

gamocemaze pasuxismgebelia saqarTvelos axalgazrda iurist-Ta asociacia da misi Sinaarsi ar gamoxatavs donoris oficialur pozicias.

Was edited and published in the Young Lawyers’ Association 15, J.Kakhidze st. Tbilisi 0102, Georgia

(+995 32) 295 23 53, 293 61 01Web-page: www.gyla.ge

E-mail: gyla@gyla.ge

Coping and Dissemination of publication for commercial purposes without GYLA’s written permission is prohibited.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------© 2014, Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association

Author:

Editor:

Tech. Editor:

Responsible for Publication:

SALOME SAGHARADZE

KHATUNA KVIRALASHVILI

IRAKLI SVANIDZE

TAMAR GVARAMADZESULKHAN SALADZE

This Report was published by Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association in the framework of the project “Support to Establish Transparent and Accountable Governance in Georgia” financed by Open Society Foundations (OSF).

Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association is responsible for the Report and it does not necessarily reflect the position of the donor.

 1

C O N T E N T

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

1. ThePurposeoftheResearch..............................................................................5

2. ResearchMethodology...........................................................................................5

3. KeyFindings...............................................................................................................6

4. StatisticalData...........................................................................................................6

5. FreedomofInformationandPrivacyProtection........................................9

5.1. Informationrelatedtofinances(salariesandbonuses)..........................9

5.2. PersonalinformationprotectedintheNationalAgency ofPublicRegistry...................................................................................................11

5.3. Copiesofstateprocurementagreements andpersonalinformation...................................................................................12

5.4. Copiesofadministrativecomplaintsandsubsequentdecisions.......14

5.5. Criminalcasematerials.......................................................................................14

5.5.1.Informationaboutpriorrecord.......................................................................14

5.5.2.Copyofaverdict......................................................................................................15

5.5.3.Personalcaseofaconvict...................................................................................16

5.5.4.Pardoningdocuments...........................................................................................16

5.6. Telephonenumberofapublicservant..........................................................16

5.7. Informationaboutcertificateofinheritance..............................................17

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................17

 2

 3

Introduction

GeorgianYoungLawyers’Associationhasbeenworkingactivelyonfreedomof informationandprotectionofpersonal informationovertheyearsandoneofitsprioritiesistopromoteanddevelopprotectionoftheserightsbythestate.

Overtherecentyearsimportantinterpretationsweremadeinlegaldoctrineand court practice about the notion of freedom of information. It wasqualified as a fundamental human right in legal theory andpractice, andeventhoughit iscloselylinkedtofreedomofopinionandexpressionit isnowviewedasanindependentright.Inadditiontoformulatingthenotionoffreedomofinformation,alinewasdrawnbetweenthelegalregimesofinformation obtained from universally accessible sources and from stateandofficialsources. 1

Article41of theConstitutionofGeorgiaprotects freedomof informationinpublicagenciesandinofficialsourcesandimposespositiveandnegativeobligations on the state2 to provide access to the information and notinterferewithaperson’srighttoobtaintheinformation.“Havingaccesstoinformationmaintainedbystateagenciesisanimportantpreconditionforinformationalself-determinationandfreedevelopmentofanindividual.”3

In addition to the Constitution of Georgia, norms regulating freedom ofinformationarealsocontainedinChapter3oftheGeneralAdministrativeCodeofGeorgia,theLawofGeorgiaonStateSecret,LawofGeorgiaontheProtection of Personal Information and other legislative acts. However,notablyfreedomofinformationisnotabsoluteandcanbecurtailedinfavorofpublicinterests.

The foregoing acts regulated individual cases of restricting freedom ofinformation.Inparticular,para.1ofArticle41oftheConstitutionofGeorgialimits access to information from official records if they contain state,commercial orprofessional secretwhilepara.2of the sameArticle limitsaccess to information,which relates to an individual’shealth, financesoranyotherprivatematter.GeneralAdministrativeCodequalifiesinformation

1 October 30, 2008 decision #2/3/406,408 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, second board, Public Defender of Georgia and Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association v the Parliament of Georgia2 Teimuraz Tughushi, Giorgi Burjanadze, Giorgi Mshvenieradze, Giorgi Gotziridze, Vakhushti Menabde, Human Rights and the Practice of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Tbilisi 2013, p. 5733 July 14, 2006 decision #2/3/364 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, second board: Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association and Rusudan Tabatadze v the Parliament of Georgia

 4

maintained by public agencies and information related to official workreceived,processed,createdorsentbyapublicagencyorapublicservant,whichcontainspersonalinformation,stateorcommercialsecretassecretinformation. 4EventhoughArticle41oftheConstitutiondoesnotcontaintheterm“personalinformation”,para.2oftheArticleprotectssuchinformationwhileArticle44oftheGeneralAdministrativeCodedirectlyprohibitspublicagenciesfromdisclosingpersonalinformation.

TheConstitutionalCourthas linkedspheresprotectedbyArticles41and20of theConstitution tooneanother,protecting themunder the right toprivacy: “an individual’s interest to prevent disclosing of informationrelatedtoprivatemattersandtocontroldisseminationoftheinformationisoneoftheimportantaspectsoftherighttoprivacy.”5Therefore,thereisapresumptionthatinformationclassifiedaspersonalinformationhasbeenoriginallyprotectedagainstpublicaccess.

Inthisregard,theLawonProtectingPersonalInformationisanimportantpieceoflegislation,aimedatprotectinghumanrightsandfreedomsintheprocessofprocessingpersonalinformation,includingtherighttoprivacy.The law has broadened the scope of personal information to cover anyinformation related to natural persons that are identified or identifiable.ThelawwasadoptedbytheParliamentofGeorgiaonDecember28,2011andenactedonMay1,2012.6

Nevertheless, similar to freedom of information, protection of personalinformationisnotabsolutebutrather,itcanbeaccessiblebasedononeofthefollowinggroundsoutlinedbypara.2,Article41oftheConstitution:

1. Whenthereisaconsentofindividualconcerned;2. Whenprescribedbylaw;3. Whenthereisanissueofstatesecurityorpublicsafetyinvolved,for

theprotectionofhealthandrightsandfreedomsofothers.7

4 Subparagraph “n”, para.1, Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia5 October 30, 2008 decision #2/3/406,408 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, second board, Public Defender of Georgia and Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association v the Parliament of Georgia, para.15, p.25. 6 Except for Articles 43-55 enacted on July 1, 2013, while Articles 34, 35 and 39 will come into force for private sector on January 1, 20167 Notably, according to the October 30, 2008 decision #2/3/406,408 the Constitutional Court the freedom of information does not fall within the notion of “protection of other’s rights and freedoms”. The court explained that “receiving information related to a private sphere complements to the cause of protecting other constitutional rights and freedoms.”

 5

TheConstitutionalCourthasexplainedthatrightsprotectedbypara.1andpara.2 of article 41 of the Constitution are two different rights. The firstprotects rightofan interestedperson toreceive information fromofficialsources8whiletheothersafeguardspersonalinformation.9

Inthislight,freedomofinformationandrighttoprivacyareindividualrightsandwhichofthetwotakesprecedenceovertheothershouldbedeterminedonacasebycasebasis.

Competition between these two rights is even more evident when theyareputinpractice.Inthisrespectitisquiteinterestingtogeneralizecourtpracticeandfindoutthewayjudgesdeterminecomparabilityoftherighttoprivacyandfreedomofinformation,anddecidetofavoroneovertheother.

1. The Purpose of the Research

ThepurposeofGYLA’sresearchistoanalyzedecisions/rulingsdeliveredbythecommoncourtsinthreekeydirections:1)determinationofthestatisticsof disputes in courts concerning freedom of information and personaldata protection, 2) standards established by courts about personal dataprotection lawsand3)analysisof interrelationof theright to freedomofinformationandprivacyright.Itshallbenotedthattheresearchdoesnotaimassessmentofthecourtdecisions.

In the course of the research GYLA also analyzed the issues envisagedby theChapter III of theGeneralAdministrativeCodeofGeorgia and theissuesincorporatedinthelawon“PersonalDataProtection”.Incaseofbothlaws,thesubjectofthemaininterestwastheissuerelatedtopersonaldataprotection.

2. Research Methodology

As formethodology of the research, GYLA studied legislative basis aboutfreedomofinformationandprotectionofpersonalinformation,afterwardsitrequestedpublicinformationfromallthreeinstancecourtsandrequestedcopiesofalldecisionsandrulingswhichconcernedchapterIIIoftheGeneralAdministrative Code of Georgia and the Law on Protection of PersonalInformation.

8 October 30, 2008 decision #2/3/406,408 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, second board, para.13.9 October 30, 2008 decision #2/3/406,408 of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, second board, para.14.

 6

The date of enactment of the Law of Georgia on “Protection of PersonalInformation” 10waspresumedastheinitialpointoftheresearchandcoverstheperiodfromMay1,2012untilNovember1,2013.11

3. Key Findings

Somekeyfindingsweredeterminedinthecourseoftheresearch,namely:• Inthereportingperiodcourtsexaminedonmerits55casesabout

freedomofinformationdispute.Amongthemin17casesthecourtjudgedaboutprotectionofpersonalinformation.

• Whenexamining cases aboutprotectionofpersonal information,common courts were mainly governed by the Constitution ofGeorgiaandtheGeneralAdministrativeCode,whileincertaincasesforinterpretationofthenotionof“personalinformation”theyusedtheLawonProtectionofPersonalInformation.

• While discussing personal data protection legislation courtsprioritizedidentificationcriterionandrefrainedtosatisfytheclaimondisclosureofpublicinformationbasedonformalinterpretationoftheconceptofpersonalinformation.

• Thecourt consideredbenefitsandsalariesof civil servants (saveforhighofficials)andotherindividualsassecretinformation,evenwhentheywerefundedfromthestatebudget.

• According to the court interpretation, legal entity of private law,withinthescopeofbudgetfunding,isinterpretedaspublicagency;thereforecopiesofstateprocurementcontractsarepublicandshallbe accessible to any interested individual. However, informationabout the home address and phone of the director, as well asbankingaccountsprovided for in the stateprocurement contractshallbetreatedasprivateinformation.

• The court found that publicity of the process does not implyunconditionalaccesstoinformation.

4. Statistical Data

Statisticaldatasubmittedinthechapterrelyontheretrievedinformationfrom all three instance courts. Initially we submit the quantity of the

10 On May 1, 2012 the Law of Georgia on Personal Data Protection was enacted 11 The date of sending application by GYLA on request of public information .

 7

examined freedom of information cases in courts, while afterwardswe present statistics of the cases that concern protection of personalinformation.

As it follows from informationacquiredbyGYLA, in the reportingperiodfreedomofinformationdisputeswereexaminedbythefollowingcourts12:

• TbilisiCityCourt-23decisionsand37rulings;• KutaisiCityCourt-3decisionsand2rulings;• BatumiCityCourt-10decisionsand1rulings;• RustaviCityCourt-1decisionsand3rulings;• TbilisiAppellateCourt-11rulings;• KutaisiAppellateCourt-8rulings;• TheSupremeCourt-22rulings;

Totally,commoncourts(all threeinstances)haveexamined121cases.55caseswereexaminedonmeritsandrelevantdecisionsweredelivered,whilein other 66 cases proceeding was terminated without merit hearing. 37caseswereexaminedbythefirstinstancecourt,14bytheappellatecourtand4bytheSupremeCourt.

12 According to provided information other city and regional courts have not examined freedom of information disputes in the reporting period.

 8

Fromtheexamined17casesthecourtjudgedaboutexistenceofpersonalinformation and its disclosure. One case was examined by the SupremeCourt,4bytheAppellateCourtand12bythefirstinstancecourts.

CommonCourts have satisfied 1 lawsuit, 2 lawsuit and a cassationweresatisfiedpartially,whi1e10lawsuitsand4cassationswererejected.

 9

5. Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection

Courtpractice isdecisive for interpretationof the legislativenorm,whichis especially topical for resolution of the issues such as conflict betweenfreedom of information and privacy protection. As mentioned in thebeginning,betweenthesetworightspriorityshouldbegrantedindividuallyineachspecificcase.Therefore,courtinterpretationoftheissueanditslegalassessmentisinteresting.

TheChapterconcernsallissuesthatwereexaminedbythecommoncourtsduringtrials.

5.1. Informationrelatedtofinances(salaries and bonuses) Para2,Article41oftheConstitutionofGeorgiaprovidesthatofficialpaperspertainingtoindividual’sfinancesareconfidentialandshallbeaccessibletootherindividualsonlyinexceptionalcases,whileArticle44oftheGeneralAdministrativeCodeofGeorgiaappliesfreedomofinformationprincipleintermsofpublicofficials’finances.13Inthereportingperiodallthreeinstancecourts judged on the issue and made greatest number of decisions andrulingsonthecase,whichspeakabouttopicallyoftheissue.TheSupremeCourtofGeorgiamade important interpretation in thecaselitigatedagainstRustaviLocalCouncil.14TheapplicantsoughtinformationaboutbonusesgrantedtocivilservantsofRustaviLocalCouncilindividually.Thecourtjudgedaboutlegalnatureofbonusesasofindividual’spersonalinformation and found: “[...] requested information allows identification of the individual, i.e. it is related to personal information. Public information that allows identification constitutes personal data, therefore regime of protection of personal information applies thereto.“ Further,thecourtpaidattentiontotheLawonProtectionofPersonalinformationandexplained:“[...] Personal data protection is based on confidentiality of information.[...] Legislation on Protection of Personal Information is constructed on identification criteria providing that unless otherwise prescribed by legislation or released by the individual concerned, personal information is considered closed. [...] Personal information is one of the ways of privacy protection, and in its protection final priority is granted to identification criterion, rather than to sensitivity.

13 “High state official” for the purpose of freedom of information law is “High State Official” provided in Article 2 of the Law of Georgia on “Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Public Service”. 14 The ruling of the Supreme Court bs-527-518(k-12) on May 30, 2013.

 10

It means that information is closed if it allows identification of an individual.“

However, in this ruling the Supreme Court differentiated personal dataprotection standardofhigh stateofficials (including thosenominated forsuchposition)andothercivilservants.“Publicity of information related to high state officials that contain personal information serves the legitimate aim – to ensure transparency of information about high officials. [...] Therefore, in view of persisting public interest personal data of high state officials are open.“ As for the bonuses of other civil servants, the court introduceddifferentpracticeandfoundthatinformationabouttheirbonusesshallnotbedisclosedwithout consentof such individuals, since they arenothighstate officials and therefore information about their financial incomesis confidential. In view of this, the Supreme Court satisfied the claim ondisclosureofpublicinformationonlyinthepartofhighstateofficials.The disputes on disclosure of financial information were also examinedbythefirstinstancecourtandtheAppellateCourt.Theyhaveappliedthesame standard in terms of disclosing information about bonuses of civilservants and did not satisfy the applicant’s request. It should be notedthatinformationisconsideredsecretwhenapplicantrequestsinformationaboutamountofbonusreceivedbytheconcreteindividual,whilegenerallypublicagenciesarenothesitanttodiscloseinformationaboutthetotalsumofbonusesissuedbypublicagencies.Batumi City Court made important interpretation in the lawsuit againstLEPL “Batumi State Musical Center”.15The applicant requested detailedcalculationsoftheperformance(includingartists’remunerationandotherinformation) funded from the President’s Reserve Fund. In this case, theadministrative agency released information about the total sum, thoughit refrained from submitting detailed calculation. The court stated that“[...] Individuals name, address and etc. cannot be considered as the only identifying data. Rather, financial incomes of the individual are also implied in identification opportunities, which is personal information. As for financial information [...] it does not imply only information that concern money or financial relationship and which give absolute or general impression about individual’s financial condition. Financial information means data, which directly or indirectly reflect material part of individual’s private sphere, materials grounds for his occupation or existence.“

Inallforegoingdisputesthecourtmentionedthat,accordingtoidentificationcriterion,informationrelatedtoindividual’sfinanceswasexplicitlypersonalinformation and paid attention on the importance of confidentiality of

15 Decision of Batumi City Court #3-155/12 June 22, 2012.

 11

the information, though it fell short to judgeaboutoriginof financesandtransparencyofpublic finances in general,which if discussed couldhavebecomethereasonofopennessofinformationintermsofotherrightsandfreedoms.

5.2. Personal information protected in the National Agency of Public Registry

During the reportingperiodcommoncourtsexamineddisputes involvingpublicaccess to informationmaintainedbytheNationalAgencyofPublicRegistry.While examining various complaints brought against the Public Registryby different plaintiffs involving access to real estate registration cards,right topropertydocumentsaswell asdocuments related to registrationofchangesinregisteredright,thecourtruledinallofthecomplaintsthattheinformationconcernedfellunderthecategoryofpersonalinformationaccesstowhichwasregulatedbylawbymeansofaspecialprocedure,andthatapersonrequestingaccess to the informationshouldalso followtheprocedure.Ruling of Kutaisi Appellate Court16 and decisions of Batumi City Court17 underlinetheuniformpracticeofprovidingaccesstoinformationmaintainedbytheagency.Inthesedecisionscourthasexplainedthat“Article 6 of the Law of Georgia on Public Registry allows access to information; in particular, its paragraph 1 stipulates that information maintained by the Public Registry and documents kept in the agency are public and accessible to any individual, except when prohibited by law. […] The General Administrative Code of Georgia envisages cases when information requested by an individual falls under the category of public information with unrestricted access. If the information is classified as personal information, it is subjected to a particular procedure envisaged by applicable legislation that should be abided by […] public agency as well […].”

Consequently, access to public informationmaintained by public registrycanberestrictedandprovidedon thebasisofcertaingroundsonly,eventhoughtheinformationissubjecttohighstandardsofpublicaccess.

16 Verdict of Kutaisi Appellate Court, October 2, 2012, #3/b-445-201217 Batumi City Court’s October 14, 2012 verdict #3-387/12 and June 29, 2012 verdict #3-273/12

 12

5.3. Copies of state procurement agreements and personal information

IninterpretationoftermsinArticle27oftheGeneralAdministrativeCodeofGeorgia,forthepurposesoffreedomofinformation,apublicagencyis

• An administrative agency; • Legal entity of private law funded from the state ormunicipal

budget,withintheframesofsuchfundingThepresent subchapter focusesonparagraph2andviews legal entityofprivatelawasapublicagency.TbilisiCityCourtexaminedtheissueinGeorgian Young Lawyers’ Association v the Ministry of Defense of Georgia18 inwhichGYLAsoughtaccesstocopiesof state procurement agreements. The Ministry of Defense of Georgiaprovidedthedocumentswithpartsofitencoded.Thefollowingpartsoftheinformationwereencoded:

• Informationaboutprovider(nameoftheorganization,nameofitsdirector);

• Costoftheserviceprovided;• Director’shomeaddressandhometelephonenumber;• Bankaccountinformation.

AsGYLAfoundtheencodedpartsunacceptable,itfiledincourtagainsttheMinistryofDefense.Thecourtexaminedlegalgroundsforprotectingeachpieceofinformationandexplainedwhichpartofinformationfellunderthecategoryofpublicorprivateinformationineachindividualcase.For thepurposesof freedomof information, in itsdecisionthecourtsaidthatwithintheframesoffundingreceivedfromabudgetlegalpersonsaresubject to thesame legal regimeaspublicagenciesandstated: “access to public information is an expression of perfect functioning of a democratic system - respect to spending of budget funds, public should have access to information maintained by state agencies. Public lacks an opportunity to receive the information about an organization funded by an administrative agency from any other sources. Therefore, within the frames of freedom of information, the Ministry of Defense of Georgia is obligated to provide an interested individual with an access to information that falls within the scope of such regulation.”

18 December 17, 2012 decision of Tbilisi City Court, #3/3856-12

 13

Consequently,anylegalentityofprivatelawfundedfromthestatebudgetisapublicagencyinframesofsuchfunding,whileitscompany nameshouldbeaccessibletoeveryone.Thecourtexplainedthatotherwisethepurposeofprovidingaccesstopublicinformationwouldbepointlessanditwouldbeimpossibletorealizefreedomofinformationinpractice.The court also found that name of director of company providing theservice also constitutes public information, “[…] considering that both company name and name of director (authorized representative) are public, the information is included in the registry of commercial and non-commercial legal entities that can be accessed by all interested individuals.”

Courtalsomadethefollowingimportantinterpretationaboutcost of service:“access to information about spending of state funds by an administrative agency serves the legitimate purpose of protecting rights of other individuals. […] for the protection of public’s right it is the will of a lawmaker to delegate a private person with different functions envisaged for a public agency with respect to funding received from state and subject it to the scope of regulation of the General Administrative Code, in order for an outside individual by having an access to the information requested to be able to analyze spending of funds allocated from the budget, public access to which serves the purpose of keeping public informed to enable it to control that budget funds are spend appropriately.” As to the name of company director, his/her home address and telephone number,thecourtexplainedthattheinformationisprotectedbytherighttoprivacyandeventhoughithasbeenindicatedinanagreementitdoesnotfallunderthecategoryofpublicinformation,whileitsdisclosurewould interferewithreasonableexpectationofprivacy.Consequently, thecourt did not uphold plaintiff ’s claim. Further, it deemed an individual’sbank accounts as secret information, saying that “[…] a private person’s bank account constitutes information related to monetary relations, which is generally designed for conducting business relationships as opposed to a concrete relationship. Such information is related to financial aspect of the sphere protected by privacy and material aspects of an individual’s activities. Therefore, it falls under the category of information related to an individual’s finances and everyone has a valid Constitutional interest to have it [information related to an individual’s finances] protected.”

The foregoingdecisionclearly illustrates theconflictbetween freedomofinformationandtherighttoprivacy.Ontheonehand,thecourtdeterminedlegalregimethatalegalentityofprivatelawissubjecttoinrelationsthatoriginate frompublic law,whileontheotherhand, itgrantedprecedencetotheprotectionof“other’srightsandfreedoms”overtherighttoprivacy,

 14

and examined freedomof information in conjunctionwith another right,transparencyofpublicfinances.

5.4. Copies of administrative complaints and subsequent decisions

Thecourtvalidatedtherefusaltoprovidecopiesofadministrativecomplaintsandsubsequentdecisions,statingthatundersubparagraphs1band1cofArticle181oftheGeneralAdministrativeCode,anadministrativecomplaintcontainsinformationthatallowsidentificationofanindividual:“[…] identify (or company name) and address, as well as factual circumstances giving rise to a legal interest of plaintiff (natural or legal person) towards the issue to be resolved (the information should be reflected both in administrative complaint and its subsequent decision), which falls under the category of information related to private matters.” 19

Itisnotclearfromthedecisionastowhatformtheplaintiffrequestedtheinformation in. Therefore, it is interesting to know how the case wouldhave been resolved had the plaintiff requested access to the informationwith encoded name and address of individual concerned, consideringthat thecourtqualifiednotonlythename,surnameandaddressbutalsofactual circumstances involved as secret information. Consequently, it isimpossibletotellwiththedecisionofcourtwhethertheforegoingfactualcircumstancesarequalifiedassecretinconjunctionwithinformationthatallowsidentifyingofanindividualorwhethertheymustbeviewedassecretevenwithouttheidentifyinginformation.

5.5. Criminal case materials Therewereanumberofothercaseswherepersonalinformationandpublicinformationintersected.Duringthereportingperiodcourtadoptedseveraldecisionsandrulingsinwhichitaddressedtheissueofwhetherinformationaboutpriorrecord,copyofverdict,personalcaseofconvictandpardoningdocumentswereprotectedfrompublicaccess.

5.5.1. Information about prior record Subparagraph“b”ofArticle2oftheLawofGeorgiaonProtectionofPersonalInformationprovidesdefinitionofthenotionofinformationthatfallsundera special category, which in addition to other special information alsoincludes informationaboutprior record. Inoneof thedisputes the court

19 December 17, 2012 decision of Tbilisi City Court, #3/3856-12

 15

grantedclaimbasedon the foregoingprovisionandnoted thatprovidingaccesstoanddisclosingtheinformation“[…] shall be permissible only on the basis of a written consent of individual concerned.”20 Thefactthatapplicant’spriorrecordcouldhavebeenrelatedtothepriorrecord of the individual concerned was not considered by court to besufficientbasisforprovidingaccesstopersonalinformation.Consequently, information about prior record falls under the categoryof special personal information that can only be obtained pursuant toprocedures that protect against disclosure of an individual’s private lifewithouthis/herconsent.

5.5.2. Copy of a verdict Copy of verdict delivered in criminal case was classified as personalinformationbyacourt.Applicantwasrequestingaccesstoacopyofaverdictthat did not have names and surnames encoded. In court’s opinion “the verdict disclosing names and surnames of defendants together with actions that it described will allow the victim to identify the defendants.”21

Tbilisi appellate Court upheld the interpretation provided by the firstinstance court about public access to proceedings, saying that “trial falls under the field of legal proceedings as opposed to administration. Therefore, public access to trial and providing access to public information are two different institutes based on similar foundations. […] public access to trial means allowing an individual to attend any trial without any obstacles or restrictions (except when otherwise prescribed by law), while freedom of information is allowing an individual to receive information kept by public agencies without any obstacles.” Thecourtalsonotedthatalthoughbasedontheprincipleofpublicaccesstoinformationactsofcourtaredeclaredpublicly,declarationofverdictisattendedonlybycertainindividualsandthedecisionmadeunderprocedurallawissentonlytoindividualsinvolvedinthecase.Consequently,consideringthattheapplicanthasnotpresentedconsentofanindividualconcernedtoreleasehispersonalinformation,publicaccessmaynotbeprovidedtocopiesofaverdict.

20 Tbilisi Appellate Court’s verdict #3b/66-13, dated February 7, 201321 Tbilisi Appellate Court’s verdict #3b/785-12, dated August 15, 2012

 16

5.5.3. Personal case of a convictInadisputeexaminedbyKutaisiCityCourtbroughtagainstthePenitentiaryDepartmentapplicant22soughtdisclosureofpersonalcaseofaconvictandaccesstothefileofthecaseofdisciplinaryliability.23 Similartotheforgoingcasesthecourtrejectedtheclaimcitingprotectionofpersonalinformationasgroundsandfurthernotedthat“pursuant to para.5, Article 36 of the Code of Imprisonment, a defendant/convict has access to his/her personal case. Special authorized individuals also have access to a convict’s or a defendant’s personal case. The list of such individuals is approved by the Minister.“24 Consequently, in court’s opinion disclosure of a personal casewouldhaveviolatedconvict’srighttoprivacy.

5.5.4. Pardoning documents One of the cases tried during the reporting period involved pardoningdocuments.25 President’s Administration refused to provide copies ofcorresponding executive orders as they contained personal information.However, the court did not examine whether pardoning documentsconstitutedsecretinformationornotastheapplicantdidnotimpugnit.

5.6. Telephone number of a public servantCourt stated that public servant’s telephone number falls under thecategoryofpublic informationandexplained that “[…] information about official telephone number of a public servant does not fall under the category of personal information. Refusal to provide the information requested by applicant may not be assessed or viewed as interference in privacy of the public official concerned. The information partly falls under the private sphere; however, ensuring fulfillment of official functions and duties of a public official, related to protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms and realization of the right to access public information trumps the interest of protecting similar information about public official that falls under the private sphere

22 The applicant was a convict requesting access to the case file of another convict. He explained that disciplinary measures taken against him in penitentiary facility was related to the information that he was requesting access to23 March 14, 2013 decision of Kutaisi City Court, #3/26-201324 The list indicated by court was adopted by the Minister of Corrections and Probation on May 25, 2011, under the Order N90, stipulating that only employees of the Ministry of Corrections and Probation have access to personal case file of a defendant/a convict25 January 3, 2013 decision of Tbilisi City Court #3/1570-12

 17

from disclosure.”26

Furthermore,thecourthighlightedthatcommunicationwithapublicofficialoveratelephonemayinnowaybeprohibitedunlessotherwiseprescribedbylaw.Consequently, informationaboutpublicofficial isopen forany interestedindividual.

5.7. Informationaboutcertificateofinheritance In a dispute brought against the legal entity of public law Chamber ofNotaries, applicant sought access to information about certificate ofinheritance issued for the property left by a deceased person, withoutprovidingidentityofheirs.Notably,notaryactsareprovidedtoindividualsconcernedortheirrepresentativeswhileinthepresentcasetheapplicantwasneither.TheLawofGeorgiaonNotaryallowspublicaccesstocertaininformation,includingcertificateofreceivinginheritance.Courtstatedthat“in absence of the information [about heirs that received the inheritance], the certificate shall be provided to any individual. When information about heirs receiving the inheritance is available, the certificate shall be provided without disclosing their identity.”27

Consequently, the right toprivacywill beprotectedbynotdisclosing theidentityofheirsandanyindividualcanreceiveinformationaboutcertificateofinheritance.

Conclusion The research demonstrated once again the judiciary’s decisive role ininterpretation of legislative norms and practical realization. In decisionmaking,thecourtwasgovernedbyArticle41oftheConstitution,Chapter3oftheGeneralAdministrativeCodeofGeorgia,provisionsoftheLawonProtectionofPersonalInformationandthelegislativeactsandbylawswhichregulatedtheissuespecifically.Important interpretations were made about transparency of publicfinances.Courtviewedinformationaboutalegalentityofprivatelawwithinthe framesofbudget fundingaspublic informationandrejected the ideaof providing the information in an encoded form. In this respect, it also

26 April 16, 2013 decision #3-8/13 of Batumi City Court 27 August 5, 2013 decision #3/421-13 of Tbilisi City Court

 18

addressedtheissueoffinancialincomeofpublicservantsbutsuggestedthattheforegoingprinciplecoverspublicofficialsonly,basedonArticle44oftheGeneralAdministrativeCode.Inothercasescourtsdidnotpayattentiontopublicaccessoffinancialinformationandrefusedtoprovidepublicaccessstatingthattheinformationfellunderthecategoryofpersonalinformation.Information about other private spheres of public officials was also thesubjecttomoretransparency.Information about prior convictions was also qualified as privateinformation, includingcopyofaverdict,convict’scase file,administrativecomplaintandsubsequentdecision,homeaddress,telephonenumberandbankaccountdetails.Notably,suchpracticeisbasedontheidentificationcriteriafromlegislationfor safeguarding personal information; the latter constitutes secretinformationwithoutconsentoftheindividualconcerned.Incourt’sdecisionidentification criterion takes precedence over the criterion of sensitivity,suggestingabsenceof testofproportionality. In its judgments courtdoesnotexaminetheratioofinterestintheinformationconcerned,explainingthat information that allows identification of an individual is secret anditsdisclosureisprohibited.Theintroductionofthepresentresearchnotesthatfreedomofinformationandrighttoprivacyareindividualrightsandwhichofthetwotakesprecedenceovertheothershouldbedeterminedonacasebycasebasis.However,consideringtheabsenceofpublicinteresttest,proportionalitybetweenthetworights ismostoftendecidedwitharigidattitudedisplayedbycourtinalloftheforegoingcases.Consequently, in majority of the cases court restricted freedom ofinformationsuggestingthatpersonalinformationissubjecttoahighdegreeofprotection.