REALISATION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION UNDER MARTIAL LAW: ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF ENSURING

Abstract

The article provides rationale for the legal regime of restrictions on informational rights, which is formed as a temporary, yet systematically significant administrative-legal institution, aimed at ensuring a balance between national security interests and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Its content cannot be fully understood without a clear distinction between the broad category of informational rights and the specific right to information enshrined in Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as it is this distinction that defines the boundaries of permissible state interference during a state of war. It is emphasized that the constitutional principle of proportionality, together with the requirements of necessity and temporal limitation, sets the fundamental framework for the legitimacy of any restriction, while international standards, primarily Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), outline guidelines that compel the state to act predictably and justifiably, even in the face of extraordinary threats. Attention is drawn to the fact that Ukraine’s administrative-legal practice, including decisions on the blocking of information resources and legal disputes concerning such decisions, demonstrates an unevenness in legal reasoning. In a number of rulings, there is a noticeable lack of detailed reasoning, which complicates external oversight of the proportionality of interference and undermines trust in the mechanisms of state response in the information sphere. The necessity for a systematic update of administrative procedures is highlighted, particularly the establishment of clear criteria for the minimality of interference, the determination of time limits, and standards of evidentiary requirements, which should form the basis for the blocking of information resources or other forms of access restriction. The conclusion is drawn that strengthening independent oversight, including the introduction of automatic judicial review of decisions ex post facto and enhancing the functions of the Ombudsman, is a necessary condition for ensuring real accountability of public authorities. The author develops recommendations for improving administrative-legal mechanisms, which should align the state’s security interests with democratic standards of freedom of information, while maintaining a balance between the protection of society and respect for fundamental human rights.