Mechanically searching for information about the status of proceedings in a large number of documentary files does not automatically constitute the creation of new information

On September 25, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by judgment no. 8Svk/26/2025, changed the dismissing judgment of the Administrative Court in Banská Bystrica by annulling the decision of the Žilina Regional Prosecutor’s Office regarding the non-disclosure of information and returning the case to it for further proceedings. The Court of Cassation stated that requesting information on the status and conclusions of a larger number of proceedings of the District Prosecutor’s Office does not constitute a requirement to create new information, even if this information is not contained in the information system but is only ascertainable from documentary files.

The plaintiff, pursuant to Act No. 211/2000 Coll. on Free Access to Information, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Info Act”), requested the District Prosecutor’s Office Námestovo (hereinafter referred to as the “District Prosecutor’s Office”) to make information available – to send conclusions (status of proceedings) in all his proceedings. He claimed that he was trying to find out whether the illegal action – inaction in the construction proceedings, which were the subject of his complaints submitted to the District Prosecutor’s Office, had been eliminated, because he suspected that the construction office had mishandled the prosecutor’s warning and illegally extended deadlines.

The District Prosecutor’s Office did not comply with the plaintiff’s request on the grounds that it did not have the requested information. It argued that the information was based on approximately 70 of the plaintiff’s files, which could not be derived from the information system without manipulating specific supervisory files. The plaintiff’s request could therefore only be met by creating specific data analysis, i.e. new information that the District Prosecutor’s Office is not obliged to create. The decision of the District Prosecutor’s Office was also confirmed by the Žilina Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and the plaintiff’s action against these decisions was also dismissed by the Administrative Court in Banská Bystrica.

In the case in question, the Supreme Administrative Court examined whether the plaintiff actually requested the District Prosecutor’s Office to create new information. It stated that the obligated person is not actually obliged to create new information under the Info Act. In the opinion of the Court of Cassation, however, it is necessary to distinguish whether this is only a mechanical collection of existing information or the creation of qualitatively new information – including, for example, the arrangement of information according to precise criteria specified by the applicant with the aim of creating a qualitatively new document. In the opinion of the Court of Cassation, a sign of the creation of qualitatively new information is a certain higher degree of intellectual complexity required in preparing a response to the request (taking the form of, for example, a study or analysis). However, the creation of new information is not the case in cases where the processing of a request under the Info Act involves only mechanical search in several documents or files.

The Court of Cassation concluded in the case in question that the applicant requested information (conclusions – the status of its proceedings on its motions) concerning the competence of the District Prosecutor’s Office, which it should have in the files kept on the plaintiff’s motions. The applicant did not request the preparation of an analysis or opinion, but only a mechanical collection of information. The District Prosecutor’s Office could have done this by simply searching through the files. The fact that the requested information is not directly kept as a separate item in the prosecutor’s information system does not and cannot have an impact on the disclosure of the requested information.

The Court of Cassation acknowledged that searching for the requested information may be time-consuming, but in its opinion, the solution to this situation is not to withhold information on the grounds that it is not available to the person obliged. In the event of time-consuming searching for information, the legislator has provided for an extension of the deadline for making information available or allows the person obliged to agree with the applicant on another method of making information available that could be less time-consuming for him. Even if the plaintiff had 70 complaints (as the District Prosecutor’s Office claimed), searching for the requested information in such a number of files must be manageable for the obliged person within the extended deadline and should not result in the operation of the District Prosecutor’s Office being paralyzed.

The Court of Cassation therefore acknowledged the merits of the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and changed the dismissing judgment of the administrative court by annulling the decision of the Žilina Regional Prosecutor’s Office and returning the case to it for further proceedings.

The judgment was adopted unanimously and no appeal is admissible against it.

The decision was made by Panel No. 8 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel Mgr. Kristína Babiaková (judge rapporteur), judges JUDr. Anita Filová and JUDr. Rastislav Dlugoš, PhD.