Chile, Court of Appeals of Santiago, 3 January 2023, Rol No. 268-2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The plaintiff (a vaccine laboratory) filed a legality review (which challenges an administrative order that may affect the rights of a private person), against the decision of the Council for Transparency (CPLT) that ordered the disclosure of information related to Covid-19 vaccines (a copy of the patents, its components, its origin and habitual uses). The plaintiff argued that the decision was illegal as the procedure was not followed by public authorities (the plaintiff was not duly informed of the decision). Likewise, it argued that the information could not be disclosed, as it was private and subject to confidentiality laws. Thus, there was an economic harm. Finally, it alleged that the decision affected a national interest, specifically public health. The Court rejected the claims, arguing that there was no proof of economic harm or any individual rights caused by the disclosure of the information. Likewise, there was no violation of confidentiality laws as the decision of the CPLT divided the information in a reasonable and proportionate manner so that the right to information and the rules for industrial secrets were both respected.
Facts of the case
On November 9, 2021, a citizen filed a petition to public authorities to disclose information of the Covid-19 vaccines, specifically a copy of the patents, their components, their origin and habitual uses. On May 17, 2022, the CPLT ordered the partial disclosure of this information and notified third parties that could be affected by the decision. On June 2, 2022, the plaintiffs appealed the decision before the Appeals Court of Santiago. On January 3, 2023, the Court denied the appeals.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court reasoned that the decision of the CPLT was reasonable and proportionate in the sense that it complied with transparency laws. For the Court, these transparency laws (which may establish exceptional state secrets) must be weighed against fundamental rights, such as the freedom of information. As the CPLT abided to these rules and carefully divided protected data from the data that could be safely disclosed, the decision did not violate any rights. Moreover, for the Court, the plaintiff failed to prove whether an economic harm had occurred, caused by this disclosure.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court rejected the appeal and maintained the decision of the lower authority.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Freedom of information
- Freedom to conduct a business
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court argued that the decision of the CPLT was reasonable. According to the court, the CPLT followed the rules provided in Transparency laws, which establish specific requirements to not disclose certain information that is considered secret. For the Court, the CPLT duly divided the information into what could be safely disclosed and what was subject to secrecy laws. Hence, its decision was not arbitrary.
Other notes
Principle of publicity and transparency, Art. 8 (reformed by Constitutional Amendment), Chilean Constitution: Every act of a public organ must be transparent and publicized, and exceptions must be provided by law.
