Journalist v. Prosecutor (Water Pollution Case Decisions Access)

A journalist sought judicial review after the prosecutor denied access to final decisions, such as penalty orders or dismissal notices, concerning water pollution cases in the canton during 2007 and 2008, arguing that the denial violated the public nature of judicial proceedings under the Federal Constitution and international human rights treaties. The court reasoned that while a general, unrestricted right to access does not exist for non-parties, the established constitutional principle of publicity in judicial proceedings mandates transparency, requiring that interested parties like the media, with a demonstrable and legitimate interest, be granted access to such decisions unless significant public or private interests outweigh this need, and since the journalist was focusing on a matter of public concern and the requested access to final decisions—not full files—would not paralyze the investigative apparatus, the denial was overturned, and access was granted upon payment of a fee.