Reasons
for the Amending Act to the Access to Public Information Act

The legislative regulation of the right to access to public information is a necessary precondition for enhancing transparency in the activities of government authorities, local governments and other public institutions, as well as for reducing corruption preconditions in the work of the public administration.

The existing Access to Public Information Act (APIA) was passed in 2000 after a broad public debate with the active participation of a number of Bulgarian and foreign non-governmental organisations, journalists and experts. In the course of that debate, many critical remarks and recommendations were made, ensuing from international legal instruments (the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Recommendation R(81)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 25 November 1981, etc.), as well as the existing legislation in this sphere in the EU Member States and Central and Eastern European countries, the United States, Canada and Australia. They related mainly to the definition of the term "public information", the range of persons within the scope of the Act and the procedures for appeal of decisions to grant and to refuse to grant access to public information. Unfortunately, the majority in the 38th National Assembly ignored most of the recommendations. That led to a number of practical problems in the application of APIA.

For these reasons, the proposed amending bill to APIA includes:
1. Re-defining of the term "public information" in conformity with the legislative models in EU Member States and the United States aimed at overcoming the excessive subjectivism and reducing the opportunities for discretionary judgements of the persons responsible for ensuring access to public information on what information to make available and what information to retain.

2. Specifying the range of persons responsible for ensuring access to public information. It excludes mass media since European and international standards do not allow any obligations of the media in the legislation relating to the access to information. It is proposed to repeal Art. 18 and the related Art. 19 of APIA, which currently require the mass media to provide information concerning:
"- the persons taking part in the management of the respective media or exercise effective control over its management or its activities;
- business related parties taking part also in the management of other mass media, which allows them to exercise an effective control over their management or their activities;
- the persons directly engaged in the mass media and which participate in the formation of its editorial policy;
- the announced statements on the mass media' public goals, as well as principles and internal rules applied by the mass media to guarantee correctness and objectivity of disseminated information;
- the financial results of the mass media's owner and the dissemination of its production."

3. This provision in the existing APIA undoubtedly creates conditions opportunities for control over the media and undue pressure on their managers and owners. There exist no such provisions in the legislation of developed democracies and therefore it evokes critical attitudes among international experts and representatives of prominent non-governmental organisations like the Access to Information Programme, Article 19, the Helsinki Watch Committee, etc.

4. It is proposed to provide opportunities for appeals of decisions and refusals to grant access to public information, including implied refusals, not only in a judicial but also in an administrative procedure, i.e. before a higher-ranking administrative authority, which will reduce the burden of courts.

5. It is explicitly stated that information provided orally and the review of an original or a copy of a document are free of charge.

6. The proposal for cases where the court revokes or alters a decision to grant access to information on grounds of wrongful action is that access will be granted on the basis of the court judgement itself rather than following the general procedures prescribed by law as the wording of the existing provision suggests.

7. It is envisaged that within six months after the effective date of the Act, all persons responsible for ensuring access to public information shall designate officials from the respective administration to be directly responsible for granting access to public information, as well as establish appropriate premises for reading the information granted.

The problem is well illustrated with the data from the national survey of the Access to Information Programme, revealing that as of 9 March 2001 136 central and local administrative structures had not designated an official to be directly responsible for granting to access to information under APIA yet, while 107 had not established proper premises for reading documents.

Presenters: Borislav Tsekov, Valentin Tserovski, Nikolai Buchkov, Rupen Krikoryan, Emil Koshlukov, Husein Chaush