Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/682/2006 • CJ GE ATAS/682/2006 Généré par l'IA

Public Records Access vs. Investigative and Deliberative Exemptions

Numéro de cause ATAS/682/2006
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The situation involved a dispute over the application of a statute concerning public access to records, where the entity possessing the records denied a request citing exceptions for ongoing investigations and internal deliberative processes. The court reasoned that the burden of proof rested on the entity to demonstrate that the withheld documents fell squarely within the statutory exemptions; absent specific evidence showing that disclosure would impede legitimate investigative work or reveal non-final policy recommendations, the general presumption favoring public access mandated disclosure, and the blanket invocation of exemptions was insufficient to meet this burden.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF, Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Public Records Access vs. Investigative and Deliberative Exemptions: The court reasoned that the burden of proof rested on the entity to demonstrate that the withheld documents fell squarely within the statutory exemptions; absent specific evidence showing that disclosure would impede legitimate investigative work or reveal non-final policy recommendations, the general presumption favoring public access mandated disclosure, and the blanket invocation of exemptions was insufficient to meet this burden.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
accès aux documents ordre public fardeau de la preuve publicité de la procédure transparence administrative données ouvertes

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF

Used to declare the appeal inadmissible because it was filed against a non-final decision.

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

Applied in the dispositive to order the appellant to pay the procedural costs.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet



               #$%&'#%''( #(&%#%''(

))

* )* !  *)! !

!+ , (  %& - %''( 



  ! "

!" 

#$%$ &'!""()'* (!+,'+-./ ("(1   0

               !  "

   %.2,%  

4("1((! !55!("(!#$6(%5 78(9+  .//3 4" 5  : ;4" <:!5("("(!4 =+/<.>>'/? "(* 1@! )#A5(")(* ("( 7*6#9 B

  4   (  C @!   5    : ; (" 4"   "("   < !51"( 4""(*B

  !  "    < 1  ,/   .//3 15!1 5  *"  (D"! !(B

 15!(+?(.//3B

 <(  !5 "(! 5 !  5 "(  +E @( .//3  "   F(1 15" 5G <"( 4" ("(;('! 1 *   5 "((5"(! 1; ) !H"' !"" F< <;;(" I   <((  ,@(".//3B

  ! (    (  ., @( .//3 ! F  5 "((5"(! 1; ) !H"<1"("55  ! "B

! (  ! "+-@(".//3!F1 (""(4(" 5 !1 B

""   !(" F  (  1 1 5    : ; <"(    4"  ("(;('  5 "((5"(! 1; ) !H"' ( (    !1 " "  5 1" !  1 1!D@"=



2+.-/2.//3  %,2,%  

) ! .  )* !  *)! !



/0121   3  411 1  5" $(% 6

+= ! " I #$%$  &  ! ;;" I 5G   4"  <:!5("("(! ! "4 =+/<.>>'/?B

.= <G!""FD!(B

,= 1  ! !D@"B

J= G AB

?= 4!   5 "(   FK 5*" 4!   !  !"   5 1"  C"   1(  ,/ @!  7  !"(4("(! 5  5( !1  1  (D 411    ' $:L(M :!4F( 3' 3//J   '  " !( )5( =  1(  5" C"  5 !!;1=  1!(  !("8 9 ((F  )""F1((! ! "1( !D"( ("51((! ""F1B D9 )5!  5!  F !"(4 ( "( 5!*!(    "" "  1((!B 9 5! "   (;"  !   ! 5 1""= $(  1!(   !"(" 5  " !( 11" 11 1 ! ""  9 D9 " 9 (%'  (D411  5! 5"  "(7   ! FK( * 1  ( *D=1!(  ! "(! ! !G  5 *' F(  !" @!("' (( F  1((! ""F1 " K*!55  F1"1)51(1 ! "6 "=+,.'+/3"+/-9=  ; 44(7    1("   G$ 1 ( 

!5(!4! 5 1" C""!"(4(1)5 "(((FKIK44(411  "15D(F5 ; 44



2+.-/2.//3