![]() While it could be seen as a positive step, the court’s action in obtaining the production of the confidential documents by the administration had not altered the fact that the main reason for the refusal remained totally unknown to the applicants, thus completely preventing them from presenting any meaningful defence. ![]() Unlike the situation in Regner, the reasons given for the judgments in the present case did not show that the courts had examined: (i) whether the documents and information relied on by the administration were actually confidential (ii) whether the three individuals in question could reasonably be regarded as presenting risks for national security and (iii) whether the grounds relied on by the administration could not be disclosed to the applicants, at least in summary form. the Czech Republic, 35289/11, 19 September 2017, Information Note 210, where the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 even though the applicant had been refused access to decisive evidence, classified as confidential, in the context of an administrative dispute, taking the view that the restrictions on the rights afforded to him in accordance with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms had been offset by other factors). Where the State’s security concerns led to a reduction in certain procedural rights, it was necessary to ascertain whether the proceedings nevertheless afforded adequate safeguards (see Regner v. The judgment of the Administrative Court had not contained any assessment going to the merits of the question and was based on documents that had been withheld from the applicants, not even provided to them in summary form. Law – Article 10: The Court’s task consisted here of ascertaining: (i) whether the administrative authorities had established, in a convincing manner and based on relevant and sufficient reasons, the need to refuse the security clearance required for a broadcasting licence and (ii) whether the applicants had enjoyed adequate safeguards in the national proceedings. As the company had been unable to obtain clearance, the High Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting (RTÜK) denied it permission to broadcast. The Administrative Court obtained from the authorities the secret results of the security investigation, but dismissed the applicants’ appeal without disclosing those results to them. ![]() ![]() After a security investigation the Prime Minister’s Office informed the applicant company that its application would be examined subject to the replacement of three members of its board, including its Chair, without giving any further explanations. In 2000 the applicant company applied for national security clearance (a prerequisite for obtaining a broadcasting licence). Refusal of broadcasting licence on undisclosed national security grounds without adequate review procedure: violationįacts – The applicants were a broadcasting company and the Chair of its Board of Directors. Information Note on the Court’s case-law 215Īydoğan and Dara Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılık Anonim Şirketi v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |