![Conclusion des EGMR-Urteils:
(e) Conclusion
113. In view of the above, the Court considers that in assessing the
circumstances submitted for their evaluation, the Minister and the
Administrative Jurisdiction Division gave due consideration to the principles
and criteria laid down in the Court's case-law regarding the balancing of
interests when faced with a request for the disclosure of State-held
information. In doing so, particular weight was attached to the confidentiality
of internal deliberations and preliminary decision-making in meetings of the
Cabinet and its sub-committees. In the light of the information in the case file
and the parties' submissions, the Court discerns no strong reasons which
would require it to substitute its view for that of the domestic authorities and
to set aside the balancing exercise undertaken by them (see also Šeks, § 72;
Saure, § 57; and Saure (No. 2), § 61, all cited above; see also Satakunnan
Markkinaporssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 196
and 198, 27 June 2017). It is satisfied that the reasons relied upon for the
partial non-disclosure of the requested documents were both relevant and
sufficient to demonstrate that the interference complained of was "necessary
in a democratic society". The authorities of the respondent State acted within
their margin of appreciation when striking a fair balance between the
competing interests at stake.
114. The Court therefore concludes that there has been no violation of
Article 10 of the Convention.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:3jkjbngiahrp4zumy5wylfap/bafkreibfwtc3ojtiorkznvo3uzdno5iktmxqnkxmvjmhsgwkmknst376zy)
Conclusion des EGMR-Urteils: (e) Conclusion 113. In view of the above, the Court considers that in assessing the circumstances submitted for their evaluation, the Minister and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division gave due consideration to the principles and criteria laid down in the Court's case-law regarding the balancing of interests when faced with a request for the disclosure of State-held information. In doing so, particular weight was attached to the confidentiality of internal deliberations and preliminary decision-making in meetings of the Cabinet and its sub-committees. In the light of the information in the case file and the parties' submissions, the Court discerns no strong reasons which would require it to substitute its view for that of the domestic authorities and to set aside the balancing exercise undertaken by them (see also Šeks, § 72; Saure, § 57; and Saure (No. 2), § 61, all cited above; see also Satakunnan Markkinaporssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 196 and 198, 27 June 2017). It is satisfied that the reasons relied upon for the partial non-disclosure of the requested documents were both relevant and sufficient to demonstrate that the interference complained of was "necessary in a democratic society". The authorities of the respondent State acted within their margin of appreciation when striking a fair balance between the competing interests at stake. 114. The Court therefore concludes that there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
der EGMR betont, dass die Gerichte alle Dokumente (in fully adversarial proceedings) unredigiert prüfen konnten; die im Gesetz vorgesehenen Schranken für den Informationszugang (insb. nationale Sicherheit) verfolgen legitime Ziele, und es wurde eine detaillierte Interessenabwägung durchgeführt
