Premise:
Previously the HCLU, citing public-interest data, requested from the ORFK all written orders and practices in force. The HCLU turned to the ORFK because during the autumn riots the police referred to such orders and practices which justified their professional and lawful conduct, but were not known to anyone outside of the police. Upon the request, in the past few months the police have sent the HCLU almost 200 protocals, but have denied access to a few dozen others, claiming those to be a danger to public safety. This refusal instigated the lawsuit. The ORFK orders and practices are classified as law, but are obligatory for police officers. Our goal is to make public those orders and measures which regulate the work of the police beyond the law.
Verdict:
Today, the HCLU has partially won against the ORFK. The court has ordered the ORFK to make public such orders and practices which are of public-interest. Of the requested data only two were qualified as public-interest: the orders for the district deputy and the rules for entering and exiting police buildings. According to their statement, the court was in a delicate situation, as they had to rule about data which was unknown to them and could not be requested by them either, as it is part of the lawsuit. With it's ruling the court has established precedent, but the question remains: is it possible to decide purely from the titles of the orders and practices, how those regulations affect the public?
After receiving the verdict in writing, the HCLU will appeal the decision. In the HCLU's view, the content of the orders and practices affect all citizens, therefore they are data of public interest.