Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Machneva v. St. Petersburg City Department of the Federal Bailiff Service

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Documents
  • Date of Decision
    October 5, 2010
  • Outcome
    Access to Information Granted
  • Case Number
    2-2983/10
  • Region & Country
    Russian Federation, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Administrative Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Access to Public Information
  • Tags
    Personal Information, Privacy, RTI law, Segregability

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg in Russia ordered a government agency to disclose files relating to its handling of a disciplinary complaint to the individual who made the initial complaint. The Court held that the only information that could be withheld by the agency was personal information.

This case analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.


Facts

Marina Machneva, a Russian citizen, complained to the head of St. Petersburg City Department of the Federal Bailiff Service about actions of officials of a subordinate district department. As a result of her complaints several administrative inspections were undertaken and some district officials were subjected to disciplinary measures. After receiving a letter notifying her about these actions, Machneva asked the department to provide her with the inspection materials, including resolutions on the results of internal office inspections held in the administration of the St. Petersburg City Department, as well as written statements of the inspected officials. The department refused to provide the documents, explaining that administrative inspection materials are confidential and should not be provided to third parties.

Machneva then applied to the Nevsky District Court for access to the documents.


Decision Overview

The Nevsky District Court had to determine whether Machneva was entitled to the documents to which she had sought access.

The Court examined the constitutional and legislative framework and held that government bodies must guarantee the possibility for everyone to have access to materials that affect their rights, and there is a constitutional right to seek and receive information without hindrance. The Court therefore concluded that Machneva was entitled to those parts of the requested files that did not contain personal information because she had a right to know details of actions that were taken as a result of her official complaint.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This case is one of the first in Russia in which a citizen successfully defended her right to access information concerning the administrative review of a complaint she had filed. The Nevsky District Court of St. Petersburg made it clear that, if materials included personal data, an applicant was nonetheless entitled to part of the information, assuming that personal information could be segregated from the non-personal information.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Attachments:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback