When public authorities do not want to provide information to applicants, they very often argue for state security or the protection of sensitive data. An ordinary citizen in the position of an applicant can hardly defend himself against such justification. However, in our law firm we are not satisfied with general phrases. We managed to obtain a fundamental judgment at the Supreme Administrative Court, which confirmed that even police documents cannot be classified across the board and that lower courts cannot make decisions without thorough knowledge of the case file.
Right to information is the fundamental right of every individual to obtain information from public authorities about their activities. Its aim is to ensure the transparency of public administration, enable public control of the exercise of state power and strengthen the accountability of public institutions.
Widespread denial of information under the guise of security
The entire dispute began with a request for information submitted by our client to the Aviation Service of the Czech Police and the Civil Aviation Authority. He requested the provision of training manuals - specifically the operations manual, safety management manual and training manuals.
The reaction of the institutions concerned was negative. They described the documents as a security risk and refused to release them in their entirety. The client defended himself against this procedure by filing a lawsuit with the Municipal Court in Prague. However, the court accepted the authorities' arguments without further investigation and dismissed the lawsuit. We did not agree with this result and on behalf of the client we filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.
Three systemic failures that the Supreme Administrative Court rejected
The Supreme Administrative Court has examined our office's objections in detail and identified three fundamental errors committed by the authorities and subsequently by the Municipal Court in Prague. These are key conclusions for the functioning of the rule of law and the transparency of justice.
1. The principle of information separability instead of blanket secrecy
The authorities refused to release the 100-page manuals, citing that they contained tactical procedures. However, the Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that these documents they also contain a large amount of completely general and banal information – for example, organizational instructions about students, the time frame of instruction, or requirements for keeping routine records.
The court thereby confirmed the long-standing principle of severability: if a document contains sensitive passages, the office should black out these specific parts, but provide the rest of the text to the applicant. It is unlawful to reject an entire document on the grounds that it contains several pieces of protected information. and it contradicts the meaning the Act on Freedom of Access to Information.
2. Fundamental error: Courts must not make decisions without knowledge of the evidence
The Municipal Court in Prague confirmed in its original ruling that the names of police instructors cannot be released because these people have specific strategic knowledge. However, in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, we uncovered a serious fact. The Municipal Court made this conclusion without even seeing the documents in question with the names of the instructors. – these names were not documented at all in the administrative file.
The court therefore ruled on the basis of the authority's mere assertion. The Supreme Administrative Court clearly declared that the judiciary must not trust administrative authorities without limit. The judge must always request the disputed documents and physically inspect them in order to be able to independently assess whether the denial of information is justified.
3. An end to the overuse of the so-called jigsaw puzzle theory
During the dispute, the authorities defended themselves by saying that Even if the information itself is not secret, it could become dangerous when combined with other, already publicly available information on the internet.
The Supreme Administrative Court rejected this argument as a universal pretext for withholding information. If an authority wants to withhold information for this reason, it must explain in a very specific and logical manner what specific data the information would be linked to and what precise security risk it would pose to the state. A mere general hypothesis is not enough.
Basic legal basis: There is no automaticity in security exemptions either. There must always be an individual proportionality test, i.e. a careful weighing of the public's right to information against the security interests of the state.
The importance of correctly formulating the request at the very beginning of the dispute
This success at the Supreme Administrative Court is a significant professional achievement for our office, but the judgment itself also contains an important lesson for applicants. It shows how crucially important the right legal strategy is in the first step.
The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out in its decision that the client did not specify in the original application – which he had initially written himself, before our office took over representation – exactly what purpose he was requesting the information for. As a result, the court had to base its proportionality test on the assumption that the applicant was acting solely in his private interest, which prejudiced him in the initial phase when weighing his rights against public safety.
It is therefore essential that the first draft of the application correctly formulate what specific public interest you are pursuing by submitting it – for example, controlling the use of public funds or supervising the qualifications of personnel. This will significantly increase our chances of success if the case reaches court.
This case is clear proof that with consistent legal argumentation, even large state institutions can be successfully confronted and errors of lower courts can be corrected.
If you encounter resistance from authorities when requesting information or are faced with unjustified secrecy of documents, we will be happy to provide you with professional legal assistance. You can contact us via the contact form or by phone - we will help you set the right strategy right from the start.
