In June 2010 Media Law Institute experts has sent a range of informational requests to central governmental bodies of Ukraine. The aim of the requests was to find out which mass media were established by these regulatory bodies and what amount of budget funds was spent on them during 2009.

One of the said requests was sent by MLI lawyer Olha Sushko to the Ministry of Ukraine of Emergencies and Affairs of Population Protection from the Consequences of Chornobyl Catastrophe. The Ministry rejected the letter without inquiry arguing that the requst was not correspoding with the requirements of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Appeals”. When MLI lawyer called to the Ministry to find out what exactly made the request inappropriate, the representative of this state body answered that there was no home address stated in the letter.

Such reason for rejection is unlawful, because it was clearly stated in the request that it was submitted according to the requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Information”. Moreover, the Law of Ukraine “On Public Appeals” does not regulate the process of obtaining information from state bodies by citizens. The respective legal regulations are provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Information”. This law specifies that in an informational request a citizen merely has to indicate an address to which he wants an answer to be sent. The Law “On Information” doesn’t contain any requirements about stating one’s home address in the request.

Besides, the National Commission on Strengthening of the Freedom of Speech and Development of the Informational Sector prepared and approved the Recommendations for governmental bodies concerning the correct way to file incoming letters according to the Laws of Ukraine “On Information” and “On Public Appeals”. The Recommendations were initiated by Media Law Institute.

Lately Olha Sushko has filed a lawsuit to the District Administrative Court of Kyiv demanding to find the Ministry of Emergencies’ refusal to provide information illegitimate and oblige the defendant to provide a proper answer to the informational request. The proceedings are scheduled for the 16 of August, 2010.