{"id":5540,"date":"2022-05-06T15:51:36","date_gmt":"2022-05-06T12:51:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/recentele-propuneri-ale-guvernului-si-perspectiva-dreptului-de-acces-la-informatie\/"},"modified":"2022-08-09T17:41:15","modified_gmt":"2022-08-09T14:41:15","slug":"recentele-propuneri-ale-guvernului-si-perspectiva-dreptului-de-acces-la-informatie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/recentele-propuneri-ale-guvernului-si-perspectiva-dreptului-de-acces-la-informatie\/","title":{"rendered":"Recent Proposals of the Government and the Perspective of the Right of Access to Information"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Cristina Durnea,<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

legal adviser at the SCJ<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the meeting of May 4th<\/sup>, the Government approved a draft law regarding the modification of several normative acts, including the Law on access to information. To dispel possible concerns regarding the effects of this initiative, it is necessary to state that the document has not yet become a law. These proposals can acquire legal force only after the examination and approval of the project by the Parliament, a process that also involves the public consultation of the document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until these events occur, let\u2019s analyze what exactly the proposed changes entail and what effects they may have on the right of access to information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The preliminary procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 2019, when the Administrative Code entered into force, contesting refusals to provide information by the authorities had become a real hassle, both for applicants and for the courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, the Law on access to information establishes that the applicant can challenge the provider\u2019s refusal \u201cboth extrajudicially and directly before the competent administrative court<\/em>\u201d. In practice, there have been numerous problems related to the interpretation of this text. More precisely, is the extrajudicial way an alternative left at the disposal of the applicant or, however, is it mandatory to be followed before going to court?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In principle, with the crystallization of jurisprudence on this segment, the magistrates agreed that it is an alternative option and not a mandatory one. In other words, currently, applicants do not<\/strong> have to follow the preliminary procedure before going to court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Returning to the legislative suggestions of the Government, the Executive proposes to replace the text that provides for addressing \u201cboth extrajudicially and directly before the competent administrative court<\/em>\u201d with the one that provides for the possibility of contesting the provider’s actions \u201caccording to the provisions of the Administrative Code<\/em><\/strong>\u201d[1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The administrative code contains several articles regulating the preliminary procedure[2]<\/a>. The interpretations of the magistrates in relation to these provisions were and continue to be extremely varied. On the one hand, some courts consider that the preliminary procedure must be followed only when special legislative rules (derogating from the Code) provide for this procedure and, on the other hand, other courts consider that compliance with the preliminary procedure is the rule, and the exception intervenes only where special laws expressly \u201cexempt\u201d plaintiffs from this burden. Therefore, many of the actions filed in court by the information requesters were declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the prior procedure, and others – because the requester missed the court deadline, waiting for a response to his prior request from the provider.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An attempt to shed light on this dilemma occurred at the end of 2021, when the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) published an Informative Note. The SCJ clearly pointed out that \u201cthe prior procedure is mandatory only <\/strong>when the special law expressly provides for it\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, in the event of the legislation of the Government’s proposal regarding the preliminary procedure, the applicants will still be able to challenge the refusals from the suppliers directly in court. In other words, the amendment will NOT change the state of affairs in this segment.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the issue of divergent interpretation by the courts of those provisions of the Administrative Code that regulate the preliminary procedure remains unsettled. The solution for changing these practices does not result from the amendment of the Law on access to information, but from the adjustment and clarification of the legal norms in the Administrative Code (art. 162-163, art. 208 of the Administrative Code).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Deadline for providing the information<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, the law provides that \u201cthe requested information must be made available to the applicant from the moment it is available to be provided, but no later than 15 working days <\/strong>from the date of registration of the request\u201d. In this sense, the Government\u2019s amendments assume the exclusion of the phrase \u201cfrom the moment they will be available to be provided[3]<\/a>. Therefore, if the Executive\u2019s amendments become law, the 15 working day period will remain unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A major problem<\/strong>, however, is the proposal[4]<\/a> to extend the deadline for extending the period in which information providers must return with an answer. Currently, the law establishes that the deadline for providing the information (15 days) can be extended by 5 working days if the applicant requested a \u201cvery large volume of information that requires their selection\u201d or if \u201cadditional consultations are necessary to satisfy the request\u201d. Therefore, the maximum waiting period for a response cannot exceed 20 working days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, the draft law approved by the Government provides for the possibility of extending the standard term (15 days) by up to 30 working days<\/strong>. Thus, in the event of the legislation of this proposal, in some situations, information requesters will be able to hope for an answer after 45 working days<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Request for access to information and the requirements of the Administrative Code<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two other proposals contained in the Government’s draft law provide for the obligation of the information requester to comply with the requirements of form and content, provided by the Administrative Code, when formulating and addressing their request[5]<\/a>. Subsequently, they provide for the provider’s obligation to register and examine information requests in accordance with the provisions of the Code[6]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 2019, the process of examination and resolution by public authorities of requests for access to information became applicable, along with the provisions of the Law on access to information, and those of the Administrative Code. The provisions of the Code (general law) apply, insofar as they do not contravene the Law on access to information (normative act of a special character)[7]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, the Law on access to information lists several requirements in relation to requesting information. Specifically, it must contain identification data of the requester, sufficient details to identify the information and the acceptable way of receiving it[8]<\/a>. In turn, the Administrative Code also provides the same conditions, the only additions being the indication of the \u201cname of the public authority\u201d, the \u201cmotivation of the petition\u201d and the \u201csignature\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although, for more than 3 years, the national courts have clearly pointed out that the procedure for exercising and capitalizing on the right of access to information falls under the Administrative Code, this fact is still a subject for polemics in the public space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, the request for access to information addressed to a public authority must satisfy both the conditions imposed by the special and the general law, with one exception in this respect \u2013 \u201cmotivation of the petition\u201d. According to the special law[9]<\/a>, the information requester is released from the obligation to justify his\/her interest in the requested information. The same rule is established in the Troms\u00f8 Convention (\u201cThe requester of an official document shall not be obliged to state his\/her reasons for obtaining access to the document\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However hard the fierce critics may argue against this fact (accomplished), a few things remain certain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 According to the current legislation[10]<\/a> (as well as the one recalled[11]<\/a> with the entry into force of the Administrative Code), the request for access to information addressed to a public authority is a petition<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 All electronic documents, including the request for access to information, must be signed electronically[12]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>. And until the entry into force of the Administrative Code, according to the Law on electronic signature and electronic document, all documents transmitted by electronic means must be duly signed, including requests for access to information[13]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, the proposal to amend the law proposed by the Government (\u201cThe request must meet the conditions imposed by the provisions of the Administrative Code\u201d) will rather have the role of exhausting uncertainties regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Code, than changing current practices.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Request readdressing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law on access to information provides that the request can be readdressed to another provider when the requested data is not in the possession of the notified provider or \u201cif there is another provider that would more fully satisfy the request”. The redirection can only take place if the supplier has informed the applicant, within 3 working days, about this fact and obtained an agreement from him\/her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this sense, the draft law approved by the Government comes with the proposal to exclude these provisions from the text of the Law on access to information. Probably the reasoning of this amendment results from the fact that the same institution (of readdressing) is also regulated by the Administrative Code[14]<\/a>. However, the Code does not establish the authority\u2019s obligation to obtain an agreement from the applicant (petitioner), and the information deadline is 5 working days. Therefore, this proposal is detrimental to information requesters<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Unclear aspects<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law on access to information distinguishes between two categories of providers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Central and local public authorities and institutions;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Physical and legal persons who, based on the law or the contract with the public authority or public institution, are empowered to manage some public services and collect, select, possess, keep, dispose of official information (\u201cPremier Energy\u201d, \u201cMoldova Gaz\u201d etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The suppliers in the first category are subjects that fall under the scope of the Administrative Code and the \u201cadjustment\u201d of the Law on access to information to its provisions can be justified in this case. On the other hand, guided by the rules of interpretation and application of the law, when we talk about the persons in the second category, only the provisions of the Law on access to information are applicable to them. At the same time, according to the practices of some courts, the disputes filed against the subjects of the second category were tried in the administrative litigation court, and others in the common law court. In other words, some magistrates \u201cassimilated\u201d the legal entities that manage public services with the authorities. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether, when drafting the draft law, the Government took this fact into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For many years, civil society has been systemically signaling about problems in the field of access to information. With good reason, in the context of the numerous illegal refusals from the suppliers, the delayed responses or the silence with which the authorities treat the requests of the applicants, access to information in the Republic of Moldova cannot be labeled anything other than \u201ca gimp right\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Illegal enforcement practices by providers are perpetuated. Courts put the Law on access to information on the list of obsolescence in order to \u201crevive\u201d it later. The international standards that the state has undertaken to respect, as well as the objectives nicely inserted into government programs and action plans, remain for the time being only on paper.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the epicenter of this drama is, in the vast majority of cases, the press, for which access to information is one of the main work tools. While some amendments in the Government\u2019s draft law do not fundamentally change current practices, others make access to information of public interest even more difficult.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legislation on access to information cannot become the target of haphazard and uncoordinated changes. The legal framework must be reformed in a consistent way, by adjusting the law to international standards and excluding provisions that generate uneven or erroneous interpretations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a>[1] Art. VIII, pct. 4 al Proiectului de lege aprobat de Guvern<\/a>: \u201eLa articolul 21 alineatul (1) textul \u201eataca ac\u021biunile acestuia at\u00e2t pe cale extrajudiciar\u0103, c\u00e2t \u0219i direct \u00een instan\u021ba de contencios administrativ competent\u0103\u201d se substituie cu cuvintele \u201econtesta ac\u021biunile acestuia conform prevederilor Codului administrativ nr. 116\/2018\u201d;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Art. 162-163 \u0219i art. 208 al Codului administrativ<\/a>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Art. VIII, pct. 2 al Proiectului de lege aprobat de Guvern<\/a>: Articolul 16 va avea urm\u0103toarea redac\u021bie: \u201eArticolul 16. Termenele de satisfacere a cererilor de acces la informa\u021bie (1) Prin derogare de la prevederile Codului administrativ nr. 116\/2018, informa\u021biile \u0219i documentele solicitate vor fi puse la dispozi\u021bia solicitantului \u00een termen de 15 zile de la data \u00eenregistr\u0103rii cererii;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Art. VIII, pct. 2 al Proiectului de lege aprobat de Guvern<\/a>: Articolul 16, alin. (2) va avea urm\u0103toarea redac\u021bie: Termenul prev\u0103zut la alin (1) poate fi prelungit cu cel mult 30 zile de c\u0103tre conduc\u0103torul institu\u021biei publice dac\u0103: a) cererea se refer\u0103 la un volum foarte mare de informa\u021bii care necesit\u0103 selectarea lor; b) sunt necesare consulta\u021bii suplimentare pentru a satisface cererea<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Art. VIII, pct. 1 al Proiectului de lege aprobat de Guvern<\/a>: \u201eLa articolul 12 alineatul (2) va avea urm\u0103torul cuprins: (2) Cererea urmeaz\u0103 s\u0103 \u00eendeplineasc\u0103 condi\u021biile impuse de c\u0103tre prevederile Codului administrativ nr. 116\/2018\u201d;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Art. VIII, pct. 1 al Proiectului de lege aprobat de Guvern<\/a>: La articolul 15 alineatul (1) va avea urm\u0103torul cuprins: \u201e(1) Cererile cu privire la accesul la informa\u021bie vor fi \u00eenregistrate \u0219i examinate \u00een conformitate cu prevederile Codului administrativ nr. 116\/2018.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Art. 5 alin. (3) \u0219i art. 7 alin. (3) al Legii privind actele normative: \u201eNormele juridice speciale sunt aplicabile \u00een exclusivitate anumitor categorii de raporturi sociale sau subiec\u021bi strict determina\u021bi. \u00cen caz de divergen\u021b\u0103 \u00eentre o norm\u0103 general\u0103 \u015fi o norm\u0103 special\u0103, care se con\u021bin \u00een acte normative de acela\u0219i nivel, se aplic\u0103 norma special\u0103 (\u2026) \u00cen cazul \u00een care \u00eentre dou\u0103 acte normative cu aceea\u0219i for\u021b\u0103 juridic\u0103 apare un conflict de norme, se aplic\u0103 prevederile ultimului act normativ adoptat, aprobat sau emis, cu excep\u021bia situa\u021biilor prev\u0103zute la art. 5 alin. (3) \u015fi (4)\u201d<\/em>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Art. 12 alin. (2) al Legii privind accesul la informa\u021bie<\/a>: \u201e(2) Cererea scris\u0103 va con\u021bine: a) detalii suficiente \u015fi concludente pentru identificarea informa\u021biei solicitate (a unei p\u0103r\u021bi sau unor p\u0103r\u021bi ale acesteia); b) modalitatea acceptabil\u0103 de primire a informa\u021biei solicitate; c) date de identificare ale solicitantului\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Art. 10 alin. (3) al Legii privind accesul la informa\u021bie<\/a>: \u201eOrice persoan\u0103 care solicit\u0103 acces la informa\u0163ii \u00een conformitate cu prezenta lege este absolvit\u0103 de obliga\u0163ia de a-\u015fi justifica interesul pentru informa\u0163iile solicitate\u201d<\/em>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Art. 9 alin.(1)-(2) Cod administrativ<\/a>: \u201ePrin peti\u021bie, \u00een sensul prezentului cod, se \u00een\u021belege orice cerere<\/strong>, sesizare sau propunere adresat\u0103 unei autorit\u0103\u021bi publice de c\u0103tre o persoan\u0103 fizic\u0103 sau juridic\u0103\u201d<\/em>. \u201ePrin cerere se solicit\u0103 emiterea unui act administrativ individual sau efectuarea unei opera\u021biuni administrative\u201d<\/em>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Art. 8 alin. (4) din Legea cu privire la peti\u021bionare<\/a>: \u201ePeti\u021biile (cererile) prin care se solicit\u0103 o informa\u021bie oficial\u0103 se examineaz\u0103 \u00een termenele stabilite \u00een legisla\u021bia privind accesul la informa\u021bie\u201d<\/em>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Art. 4 alin.(1) din Legea cu privire la peti\u021bionare<\/a>: \u201ePrin peti\u021bie, \u00een sensul prezentei legi, se \u00een\u021belege orice cerere, reclama\u021bie, propunere, sesizare, adresat\u0103 organelor de resort ,inclusiv cererea prealabil\u0103 prin care se contest\u0103 un act administrativ sau nesolu\u021bionarea \u00een termenul stabilit de lege a unei cereri\u201d<\/em>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Art. 75 alin. (1), lit. e) al Codului administrativ<\/a>: \u201ePeti\u021bia con\u021bine urm\u0103toarele elemente (\u2026)semn\u0103tura peti\u021bionarului ori a reprezentantului s\u0103u legal sau \u00eemputernicit, iar \u00een cazul peti\u021biei transmise \u00een form\u0103 electronic\u0103 \u2013 semn\u0103tura electronic\u0103\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Art. 2 din Legea privind semn\u0103tura electronic\u0103 \u0219i documentul electronic<\/a>: \u201esemn\u0103tur\u0103 electronic\u0103 \u2013 date \u00een form\u0103 electronic\u0103, care sunt ata\u0219ate la sau logic asociate cu alte date \u00een form\u0103 electronic\u0103 \u015fi care sunt utilizate ca metod\u0103 de autentificare\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Art. 74 al Codului administrativ<\/a>: \u201eDac\u0103 peti\u021bia \u021bine de competen\u021ba altei autorit\u0103\u021bi publice, originalul peti\u021biei se expediaz\u0103 autorit\u0103\u021bii publice competente \u00een termen de 5 zile lucr\u0103toare de la data \u00eenregistr\u0103rii peti\u021biei, fapt despre care peti\u021bionarul este informat\u201d;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cristina Durnea, legal adviser at the SCJ During the meeting of May 4th, the Government approved a draft law regarding the modification of several normative acts, including the Law on access to information. To dispel possible concerns regarding the effects of this initiative, it is necessary to state that the document has not yet become …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4155,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[119],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion"],"acf":[],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2.jpg",1238,1339,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-277x300.jpg",277,300,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-768x831.jpg",768,831,true],"large":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-947x1024.jpg",947,1024,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2.jpg",1238,1339,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2.jpg",1238,1339,false],"jannah-image-small":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-220x150.jpg",220,150,true],"jannah-image-large":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-390x220.jpg",390,220,true],"jannah-image-post":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-780x470.jpg",780,470,true],"awsm_team":["https:\/\/media-azi.md\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Cristina2-500x500.jpg",500,500,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"DISABLED Gancev Vasile","author_link":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/author\/vgancev\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Cristina Durnea, legal adviser at the SCJ During the meeting of May 4th, the Government approved a draft law regarding the modification of several normative acts, including the Law on access to information. To dispel possible concerns regarding the effects of this initiative, it is necessary to state that the document has not yet become…","amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5540","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5540"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5540\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5542,"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5540\/revisions\/5542"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4155"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}