CHIEF EDITOR LOST THE TRIAL BUT SECURED THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION

On July 19, 2017, Kairbulut Karimov,  judge of the Pavlodar City court, pronounced the verdict on the lawsuit of Marat Asipov, editor-in-chief of Ratel.kz against Oraz Dyuzdenbaev,  head of the Department of Agriculture, and Azamat Baitenov, press secretary of akim [head of local government in Kazakhstan – translator’s note]  of  Pavlodarsky region.

Asipov demanded to consider the refusal of officials of the Department to provide socially significant information unlawfuland oblige them to provide the list of all recipients of agricultural subsidies for 2012-2016, as well as the list of members of the commissions considering applications of potential recipients of these subsidies (please, see http://www.adilsoz.kz/news/show/id/2377 )

The Court refused to satisfy the claim of Asipov. The grounds for the refusal will be clear on July 21. Most likely they are formal and relate to procedural things.

Meanwhile, at the recent session brought an interesting turn. The fact is that for almost two months representatives of the defendants demanded to reject the Asipov’s claim. They provided the following three arguments:

1) Requests for information to Akimat were submitted from legal entity, a head of the media but claim was filed by Asipov, who as an individual did not requested information on budgetary subsidies and as a result, his rights and interests were not violated.

2) Representatives of defendants stated that the requested information is too extensive and include 10,000 (at least) recipients of the budgetary subsidies and working in many fields.

3) Akimat is concerned that some farmers who received subsidies might file their claims, since such information considered a trade secret and its transfer to third parties is damaging to business.

Today, before the discussion of the parties, representatives of the defendants informed that all information requested by Asipov (i.e. the list of 10,000 recipients of the budgetary subsidies) was uploaded at the site with public access, the website of the Agriculture Department.

It is not clear why officials for so many months denied access to information and referred to ‘commercial interests’ and why did they provide the letters of farmers who allegedly protested against disclosure of information? They also were complaining that there is no electronic data of recipients and they should handle it manually. Does it mean that the defendants did mislead the reporter and the Court?