Case: Challenging
refusal to provide information
Yuriy Reznikov versus Chief Sanitary Doctor of Khmelnytsk oblast
Region: Khmelnytsk oblast, city of Khmelnytskyi
Essence of case: Protection of the right of citizens to the environmental
information
Parties: Yuriy Reznikov – plaintiff, The Chief Sanitary Doctor
of Khmelnytsk oblast – defendant
Essence of problem: Court proceeding on the complaint on the wrongful
inactivity of the Chief Sanitary Doctor of Khmelnytsk oblast, receiving
of the environmental information
Main facts:
Yuriy Reznikov, the representative of the Society of Nature Protection,
asked EPL to provide him legal assistance.
Yuriy Reznikov found out that the company “Pilat” was building
the gasoline station near the river South Bug in the city of Khmelnytskyi.
He requested the Chief Sanitary Doctor of Khmelnytsk oblast to
provide information on the station’s construction and on possible
impact on environment and health in the city of Khmelnytskyi. He
received the answer, which violated his rights. In particular,
the received answer didn’t include the requested information. The
requested information was not classified as information with limited
access. They had to provide it within the required period.
Furthermore, the Chief Sanitary Doctor advised to request this
information from the Khmelnytsk Sanitary Epidemiological Station.
According to the article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’
Appeal”, if the requested issues don’t fall within the discretion
of the body, which received the request, it has to forward the
request to the appropriate institution or official within period
not exceeding 5 days.
The Chief Sanitary Doctor violated the rights and interests of
Yuriy Reznikov. These rights and interests are provided in the
Constitution of Ukraine, the Laws of Ukraine “On information”,
“On Citizens’ Appeal”, “On Ensuring of Sanitary and Epidemiological
Safety of the Population”.
EPL prepared the complaint on behalf of citizen. Yuriy
Reznikov challenged the activities of the Chief Sanitary Doctor
and asked the Court to oblige the Chief Sanitary Doctor to provide
the necessary information.
On July 2, 1999, the Court ruled in Reznikov’s favor. It declared
as illegal the inactivity of the Chief Sanitary Doctor and obliged
to answer to the request. |