On June 2025 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgment in Girginova v. Bulgaria became final. The Court found a violation of Article 10 and Article 13 of the Convention out of a denial to disclose the reasoning of a national court decision.

 

Back in 2015 the Sofia City Court’s refused to provide to the journalist Galya Girginova (“Reportings on judiciary”) access to the reasons for the acquittal of several officials, including former Minister of the Interior Tsvetan Tsvetanov. They were charged for failure to exert control in the misuse of secret surveillance equipment. Following an amendment to the Criminal Code in 2013, the prosecutors in the case had dropped the charges, and the acquittal was not appealed to a higher court. The information denial referred to the fact that the judgment reasons were classified as “state secret” and the access would enable to unnecessary get details about the manner of secret surveillance system operation.

 

Girginova appealed with the help of the Access to Information Programme (AIP). The national courts rejected the claim holding that the law on access to information does not extend to judicial documents and the classification as “state secret” is an absolute limitation to the right of access.

 

Here are some highlights of the case:

Journalism and the rule of law

 

The Strasbourg Court accepted that the journalist had requested the information in order to prepare a publication based on accurate facts. She had explicitly stated that she was a journalist in her application under the APIA. At the same time, the decision stressed that it was not reasonable to expect the general public to observe the trial. Here the role of journalists is key. Part of their duties and responsibilities is to observe on behalf of and for the public. The media are the main channel through which the public can verify whether judges are performing their duties accurately and impartially, thereby ensuring due respect for the rule of law (see § 63).

Nature of the requested information and public interest

 

The ECtHR considers that the grounds for the acquittal of the former Minister of the Interior are of considerable public interest. The charge of improper control over subordinates should also be considered in the light of the scandals related to the misuse of special intelligence means (SRS), detailed in the 2022 ECtHR judgment in the case of Ekimdzhiev and Others (in which one of the applicants was the AIP). It also notes the legislative change adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament in 2013, under which the unit for technical performance of secret surveillance was moved from the structure of the Ministry of the Interior to a separate State Agency for Technical Operations. In this context, it is undoubtedly of significant public interest to know how the prosecution and the courts have fulfilled their obligations in relation to these charges. Since it has become public knowledge that the prosecutors did not uphold the charges and did not appeal the acquittal, it is in the public interest to know the court’s reasons for its verdict (see § 65). Moreover, it is axiomatic that the reasoning of judicial decisions contribute to the transparency and accountability of the judicial system. Their content also contributes to the prevention of abuses of justice, which is in the interest of the whole of society. The publicity of court decisions and verdicts is one of the means of maintaining public confidence in the justice system and contributes to the fair trial, which is “one of the “hallmarks” of democracy” (ibid. § 66).

 

Was the restriction provided for by law?

 

The Strasbourg Court analyzed the conclusions of the national courts – the Sofia Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court – that the Access to Public Information Act (APIA) was inapplicable to access to court decisions and judgments, on the grounds that there was a special procedure for access, regulated by the Judicial System Act (JSA) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). Although the JSA provides for an obligation to publish them, and the CCP states that the criminal judgment is public, neither of the two laws provides for a specific procedure for access to unpublished court decisions and convictions. In this situation and in light of the case law on the inapplicability of the APIA, it follows that the law that provides for a restriction on access to information is not clear and foreseeable, in violation of the requirement of Art. 10 § 2 of the ECHR.

 

Was there a legitimate purpose for the restricted access?

 

The ECtHR has some doubts as to whether the information relating to the application of secret surveillance in the Ministry of Interior system actually relates to national security and whether providing the reasons for the verdict would really reveal a state secret. Moreover, it is known from the case of Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria that the use of secret surveillance for the protection of national security is carried out by the State Agency for National Security, and not by the Ministry of Interior. Nevertheless, the Court noted that it could be be accepted that the disclosure of information about the methods or equipment used by a public authority for covert surveillance could put national security at risk – in particular since it could, by exposing the authorities’ covert surveillance capabilities, impede the efficient future use of such methods or equipment for tasks related to national security  (§ 90).

 

Was the restriction of the reasons for the verdict “necessary in a democratic society”?

 

According to the case-law of the Strasbourg Court, restrictions on both freedom of expression and access to information within the scope of Article 10 of the Convention must be “necessary in a democratic society”. This means that a restriction should ne “sufficient and relevant” and applied in the presence of a justified “pressing social need”.

 

Special emphasis is put in the case on importance of publishing court decisions and judgments. The principle of their publicity is even more strongly present in the case of an acquittal of a person holding a high position on charges of a serious crime. Moreover, it is of high public interest for citizens to be assured that the criminal law is applied equally and impartially. The history of publicly known scandals with the application and abuse of the secret surveillance additionally justifies high public interest.

Furthermore, the Strasbourg Court stresses on the proportionality principle by suggesting examples of courts delivering both “open judgments” and “closed judgments” thus providing different volume of information to the parties and the public, properly balancing the competing interests (ibid. § 93).

 

The lack of effective remedy

 

According to the Strasbourg judgment the national courts failure to rule on the merit of the case with the excuse that certain law was not applicable is violating Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Some remarks

 

The ECHtR developed a firm understanding that judgments should be open to the public as a principle and even national security would not justify a restriction to the whole reasoning. It also points this publicity is a touchstone where the public right to know, trusted justice and the journalists’ watchdog role build together the foundations of a “democratic society” the Convention is consecrated to.