We have decided to use this extraordinary legal redress, because in our opinion the Court of Appeals made an unlawful decision in our litigation against the Constitutional Court. We wanted the courts to decide whether the Constitutional Court is required to share the motion of a Member of Parliament and his/her colleagues as public data. According to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the motion reflects the personal opinion of the people putting it forward, so that data is defined as personal in nature and thus cannot be shared without the prior consent of the people in question.
The Court of Appeals could not come to a decision during this proceeding since the court of first instance came to an opposing decision and there was no proof given to the effect that the required data were trade secrets or would fall under the category of copyright.
For this reason the Court of Appeals asked the Court of First Instance for a re-trial, in which they had to decide whether the Constitutional Court was right in refusing sharing the information with the reasoning that these data were trade secrets or fell under the category of copyright. In the new proceedings the question has to be decided according to the guidelines of today’s decision.
We asked for a Review of the Supreme Court in our legal proceedings against the Constitutional Court
In the litigation against the Constitutional Court, we have approached the Supreme Court to overrule the legally binding decision of the Court of Appeals.