During 2014, a large number of lawsuits for access to information were brought with the AIP legal support. We are publishing short descriptions of several important access to information court cases that were successfully led with AIP’s legal team assistance. Information about ongoing and completed access to information cases is included in Bulgarian in AIP monthly FOI newsletter.
1. Association “Friends of Railway Transport” vs. the “Railway Administration” Executive Agency
In June 2013, the NGO Association “Friends of Railway Transport” filed a request to the “Railway Administration” Executive Agency (RAEA) to provide access to the Agency’s annual reports on the supervision of the public service “rail transport of passenger”, as well as information on the inspections carried out by the Agency as a national enforcement body under Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. The RAEA refused access to the reports on the grounds of third party’s interests exemption whereas the third party – “BDZ – Passenger Services” EOOD (the national railway transport company) – had not given its formal consent for disclosure of the information requested. The Administrative Court Sofia - City repealed the refusal holding that the BDZ itself is an obliged subject under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA) since it is a public law organization and also is financed by the state budget. Consequently, under article 31, par. 5 of the APIA, it’s consent was not necessary for the provision of the information sought. The decision of the first court instance was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court.
- Decision of the Administrative Court Sofia – City as of 22 January 2014 (in Bulgarian)
- Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court as of 29 October 2014 (in Bulgarian)
2. MD Georgi Todorov vs. the Bulgarian Medical Association
Doctor Georgi Todorov from the city of Russe requested from the Bulgarian Medical Association (BMA) access to the decisions of the Steering Committee of the BMA by which external consultants to the association were selected; the contracts signed with those consultants and the amount of remunerations received by them for the period July 2012 – February 2013. The Chairperson of the BMA did not respond to the request and the silent refusal was challenged with the support of AIP before the Administrative Court Sofia–City (ACSC). With a Ruling as of March 2014, the ACSC left the appeal without consideration on the ground that the BMA was not an obliged body under the APIA. The Ruling was appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The SAC repealed the Ruling and returned the case to the ACSC for continuation of proceedings. The supreme justices held that the BMA should be considered a body, subject to public law, because its establishment, existence, structure, organization and activities are regulated by law – the Professional Organizations of Physicians and Dentists Act and it has public law functions under primary and secondary legislation. At the new hearing, the ACSC repealed the silent refusal of the BMA and obligated it to issue a decision on the request. The ACSC decision was not appealed and entered into effect.
- Ruling No. 1547 as of 31 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Ruling no. 7441 as of 3 June 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the Supreme Administrative Court
- Decision No. 8213 as of 29 December 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
3. Ivan Petrov vs. the Sofia Municipality
Ivan Petrov (citizen from Sofia) requested from the Sofia Municipality access to the municipal employees’ overtime logbook for 2012. The Sofia Municipality refused to grant access on the grounds that the information amounted to personal data of the employees who had worked overtime and could not be provided without their consent. The Administrative Court Sofia – City (ACSC) repealed the refusal holding that the information on overtime work under an employment relationship and for the benefit of Sofia Municipality does not constitute personal information or personal data of employees. In addition, the court stated that there is an overriding public interest since providing this information will lead to increased transparency and accountability of the Municipality. The decision of the ACSC was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
- Decision No. 1378 as of 06 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Decision No. 14638 as of 04 December 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC
4. Darinka Nikolova vs. the Municipality of Veliko Tarnovo
A group of citizens filed a request to the Mayor of Veliko Tarnovo for access to information related to the reconstruction of a residential building, part of a protected group cultural monument. The mayor refused on the grounds that the requested information contains personal data of third persons (the residential building’s owners) and their explicit consent was required for the disclosure. The refusal was challenged before the Veliko Tarnovo Administrative Court (VTAC) with the legal help of AIP. The VTAC repealed the refusal by the Mayor of Veliko Tarnovo to provide information on the reconstruction of a residential building, part of a protected group cultural monument. The court held that the lack of the third parties’ explicit consent is not grounds for refusal, since in this case the obliged body must provide partial access to the information sought, which the Municipality did not do. In conclusion, the court noted that the existence of overriding public interest in disclosure of the information sought could be admitted in view of the Veliko Tarnovo Municipality’s practice to approve building documentation contrary to the public interest and without regard to the conservation of the architectural heritage requirements. The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) upheld the decision of the first instance court.
- Decision No 101 as of 11 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the VTAC
- Decision No. 514 as of 19 January 2015 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC
5. Doroteya Dachkova (Sega Daily) vs. the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office
Dorotheya Dachkova, а journalist from “Sega” newspaper, requested from the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office (SCP) a list of all court and prosecutor clerks, containing their names, the judicial body they are employed by, the date and grounds of their employment. SCP refused on the grounds of personal data protection. The Administrative Court Sofia - City (ACSC) repealed the Supreme Cassation Prosecution’s refusal holding that the information sought does not fall in the “personal data” category since it concerns a public institution, its structure and staff, and not the persons who occupy the respective positions. Disclosure of this information will provide the journalist and the public to form an opinion on Prosecutor’s Office activities, including those on respecting the legal requirements on staff employment.The ACSC decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
- Decision No. 1860 as of 24 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Decision No 14701 08 December 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC
6. Arman Babikyan vs. the Ministry of Culture
A group of citizens requested from the Ministry of Culture a copy of an audio recording of a meeting held in 2013 between the Ministry of Culture high officials and protesting teachers from the National School for Ancient Languages and Cultures “Constantine Cyril the Philosopher” (NSALC). The minister refused to grant access with the argument that the audio recording may contain personal data, therefore it could not be disclosed without the consent of the affected third parties. A panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the refusal of the minister. With the assistance of AIP, the first instance court decision was appealed. By decisionof 30 June 2014 the SAC repealed the first instance decision as well as the minister of culture’s refusal to provide information. The justices noted that the minister had wrongfully relied on protection of personal data since he had not provided any proof of affecting the interests of third parties. They held that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information sought, since the national school’s problems had acquired media publicity through the director’s participation in a TV broadcast, as well as through the minister of culture’s media announcement of this meeting for hearing the different positions and taking and objective decision on the school’s future. Thus, the overriding public interest in the disclosure flows from the need for citizens to monitor the administration and the settlement of conflicts in the NSALC, which is part of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Culture.
- Decision No. 258 as of 09 January 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC, Seventh Division
- Decision No. 9079 as of 30 June 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC, Five-member panel
7. Arch. Vesela Toncheva vs. the Sofia Municipality
Architect Vesela Toncheva requested from the Sofia Municipality a copy of the contract concluded with a private company for the restoration and management of the “Ariana” lake in Sofia. The refusal was based on the grounds that the company had not given its explicit consent to disclosure. The Administrative Court Sofia – City (ACSC) repealed the refusal, holding that the legal presumption of existence of overriding public interest in disclosure of information related to the parties, the subject, the price, the rights and obligations, conditions, terms, and sanctions specified had to be applied in cases of contracts where one of the contracting parties is an obliged body under the APIA. The decision of the ACSC was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). According to the supreme justices, the burden of proving a lack of overriding public interest lies within the obliged public body. In the particular case, neither the issued refusal, nor the evidence provided during the court proceedings, had shown the lack of overriding public interest.
- Decision No. 1388 as of 06 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Decision No. 14040 as of 25 November 2014 (in Bulgarian) as of the SAC
8. EA “For the Earth” vs. the Ministry of Environment and Waters
The Environmental association “For the Earth” requested from the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MEW) a copy of the report on reducing emissions of harmful substances from large combustion plants, related to the European Commission's warning towards Bulgaria for failure to comply with the maxima of emission of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and of fine dust particulates. The minister refused on the ground that the requested report had no significance of its own – a ground for refusal under Art. 13, Para. 2, item 1 of the APIA. A three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the refusal of the minister. By decision of 9 October 2014 the SAC repealed a first instance decision, as well as the refusal by the minister. The court held that the information sought is information on the environment in the meaning of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) and in the meaning of the Environment Protection Act (EPA). The text of Article 13, par. 2 of the APIA providing the possibility of restricting access to preparatory documents is inapplicable to information concerning the environment and in particular the emissions of harmful substances. The court noted that in Article 20, par. 6 of the EPA the legislator has provided explicitly that the right of access to public information concerning the environment and in particular the emissions of harmful substances cannot be refused or restricted.
- Decision No. 3421/11.03.2014 of the SAC, Seventh Division (in Bulgarian)
- Decision no.11951/09.10.2014 of the SAC, Five-member Panel (in Bulgarian)
9. Lilyana Valcheva vs. the Regional Inspectorate of Education – region of Haskovo
The citizen Liliana Valcheva requested from the Regional Inspectorate of Education – Haskovo (RIE) information about inspections held in a particular school in the town of Topolovgrad (Haskovo Region). The grounds of the refusal of the head of the RIE were that the APIA does not provide for the form requested by the citizen – by e-mail. The Administrative Court Haskovo (ACH) repealed the refusal The first instance court decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative court. The supreme justices emphasized that the request for information to be provided by e-mail is a valid request since the APIA provides for the provision of information on a material carrier.
- Decision No. 189/17.10.2012 (in Bulgarian) of the Administrative Court Haskovo
- Decision No. 1864/11.02.2014 (in Bulgarian) of the Supreme Administrative Court
10. Marieta Sivkova vs. the Municipality of Yambol
Ms. Marieta Sivkova from the city of Yambol requested from the Municipality of Yambol a copy of a friendly settlement of a court dispute concluded by the municipality and a building company. The Secretary of the Municipality of Yambol left the request without consideration with the argument that under the APIA access could be sought to information, but not to specific documents. The refusal was appealed under the procedure of Art. 197 – 200 of the Administrative – Procedural Codex. The Administrative Court – Yambol (ACY) repealed the refusal, assuming that the request contains all necessary attributes under the APIA, therefore it cannot be left without consideration and the secretary of the municipality should issue a decision on the merits of the request. The ACY’s Ruling was appealed by the municipality before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The appeal however, was left without consideration at two court instances. The Ruling of the ACY entered into effect.
- Ruling No. 182/23.05.2014 of the ACY (in Bulgarian)
- Ruling No. 9366/04.07.2014 of the SAC (in Bulgarian)
- Ruling No. 12067/13.10.2014 of the SAC, Five-member Panel (in Bulgarian)
1. Association “Friends of Railway Transport” vs. the “Railway Administration” Executive Agency
In June 2013, the NGO Association “Friends of Railway Transport” filed a request to the “Railway Administration” Executive Agency (RAEA) to provide access to the Agency’s annual reports on the supervision of the public service “rail transport of passenger”, as well as information on the inspections carried out by the Agency as a national enforcement body under Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. The RAEA refused access to the reports on the grounds of third party’s interests exemption whereas the third party – “BDZ – Passenger Services” EOOD (the national railway transport company) – had not given its formal consent for disclosure of the information requested. The Administrative Court Sofia - City repealed the refusal holding that the BDZ itself is an obliged subject under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA) since it is a public law organization and also is financed by the state budget. Consequently, under article 31, par. 5 of the APIA, it’s consent was not necessary for the provision of the information sought. The decision of the first court instance was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court.
- Decision of the Administrative Court Sofia – City as of 22 January 2014 (in Bulgarian)
- Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court as of 29 October 2014 (in Bulgarian)
2. MD Georgi Todorov vs. the Bulgarian Medical Association
Doctor Georgi Todorov from the city of Russe requested from the Bulgarian Medical Association (BMA) access to the decisions of the Steering Committee of the BMA by which external consultants to the association were selected; the contracts signed with those consultants and the amount of remunerations received by them for the period July 2012 – February 2013. The Chairperson of the BMA did not respond to the request and the silent refusal was challenged with the support of AIP before the Administrative Court Sofia–City (ACSC). With a Ruling as of March 2014, the ACSC left the appeal without consideration on the ground that the BMA was not an obliged body under the APIA. The Ruling was appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The SAC repealed the Ruling and returned the case to the ACSC for continuation of proceedings. The supreme justices held that the BMA should be considered a body, subject to public law, because its establishment, existence, structure, organization and activities are regulated by law – the Professional Organizations of Physicians and Dentists Act and it has public law functions under primary and secondary legislation. At the new hearing, the ACSC repealed the silent refusal of the BMA and obligated it to issue a decision on the request. The ACSC decision was not appealed and entered into effect.
- Ruling No. 1547 as of 31 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Ruling no. 7441 as of 3 June 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the Supreme Administrative Court
- Decision No. 8213 as of 29 December 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
3. Ivan Petrov vs. the Sofia Municipality
Ivan Petrov (citizen from Sofia) requested from the Sofia Municipality access to the municipal employees’ overtime logbook for 2012. The Sofia Municipality refused to grant access on the grounds that the information amounted to personal data of the employees who had worked overtime and could not be provided without their consent. The Administrative Court Sofia – City (ACSC) repealed the refusal holding that the information on overtime work under an employment relationship and for the benefit of Sofia Municipality does not constitute personal information or personal data of employees. In addition, the court stated that there is an overriding public interest since providing this information will lead to increased transparency and accountability of the Municipality. The decision of the ACSC was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
- Decision No. 1378 as of 06 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Decision No. 14638 as of 04 December 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC
4. Darinka Nikolova vs. the Municipality of Veliko Tarnovo
A group of citizens filed a request to the Mayor of Veliko Tarnovo for access to information related to the reconstruction of a residential building, part of a protected group cultural monument. The mayor refused on the grounds that the requested information contains personal data of third persons (the residential building’s owners) and their explicit consent was required for the disclosure. The refusal was challenged before the Veliko Tarnovo Administrative Court (VTAC) with the legal help of AIP. The VTAC repealed the refusal by the Mayor of Veliko Tarnovo to provide information on the reconstruction of a residential building, part of a protected group cultural monument. The court held that the lack of the third parties’ explicit consent is not grounds for refusal, since in this case the obliged body must provide partial access to the information sought, which the Municipality did not do. In conclusion, the court noted that the existence of overriding public interest in disclosure of the information sought could be admitted in view of the Veliko Tarnovo Municipality’s practice to approve building documentation contrary to the public interest and without regard to the conservation of the architectural heritage requirements. The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) upheld the decision of the first instance court.
- Decision No 101 as of 11 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the VTAC
- Decision No. 514 as of 19 January 2015 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC
5. Doroteya Dachkova (Sega Daily) vs. the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office
Dorotheya Dachkova, а journalist from “Sega” newspaper, requested from the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office (SCP) a list of all court and prosecutor clerks, containing their names, the judicial body they are employed by, the date and grounds of their employment. SCP refused on the grounds of personal data protection. The Administrative Court Sofia - City (ACSC) repealed the Supreme Cassation Prosecution’s refusal holding that the information sought does not fall in the “personal data” category since it concerns a public institution, its structure and staff, and not the persons who occupy the respective positions. Disclosure of this information will provide the journalist and the public to form an opinion on Prosecutor’s Office activities, including those on respecting the legal requirements on staff employment.The ACSC decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
- Decision No. 1860 as of 24 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Decision No 14701 08 December 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC
6. Arman Babikyan vs. the Ministry of Culture
A group of citizens requested from the Ministry of Culture a copy of an audio recording of a meeting held in 2013 between the Ministry of Culture high officials and protesting teachers from the National School for Ancient Languages and Cultures “Constantine Cyril the Philosopher” (NSALC). The minister refused to grant access with the argument that the audio recording may contain personal data, therefore it could not be disclosed without the consent of the affected third parties. A panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the refusal of the minister. With the assistance of AIP, the first instance court decision was appealed. By decisionof 30 June 2014 the SAC repealed the first instance decision as well as the minister of culture’s refusal to provide information. The justices noted that the minister had wrongfully relied on protection of personal data since he had not provided any proof of affecting the interests of third parties. They held that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information sought, since the national school’s problems had acquired media publicity through the director’s participation in a TV broadcast, as well as through the minister of culture’s media announcement of this meeting for hearing the different positions and taking and objective decision on the school’s future. Thus, the overriding public interest in the disclosure flows from the need for citizens to monitor the administration and the settlement of conflicts in the NSALC, which is part of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Culture.
- Decision No. 258 as of 09 January 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC, Seventh Division
- Decision No. 9079 as of 30 June 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the SAC, Five-member panel
7. Arch. Vesela Toncheva vs. the Sofia Municipality
Architect Vesela Toncheva requested from the Sofia Municipality a copy of the contract concluded with a private company for the restoration and management of the “Ariana” lake in Sofia. The refusal was based on the grounds that the company had not given its explicit consent to disclosure. The Administrative Court Sofia – City (ACSC) repealed the refusal, holding that the legal presumption of existence of overriding public interest in disclosure of information related to the parties, the subject, the price, the rights and obligations, conditions, terms, and sanctions specified had to be applied in cases of contracts where one of the contracting parties is an obliged body under the APIA. The decision of the ACSC was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). According to the supreme justices, the burden of proving a lack of overriding public interest lies within the obliged public body. In the particular case, neither the issued refusal, nor the evidence provided during the court proceedings, had shown the lack of overriding public interest.
- Decision No. 1388 as of 06 March 2014 (in Bulgarian) of the ACSC
- Decision No. 14040 as of 25 November 2014 (in Bulgarian) as of the SAC
8. EA “For the Earth” vs. the Ministry of Environment and Waters
The Environmental association “For the Earth” requested from the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MEW) a copy of the report on reducing emissions of harmful substances from large combustion plants, related to the European Commission's warning towards Bulgaria for failure to comply with the maxima of emission of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and of fine dust particulates. The minister refused on the ground that the requested report had no significance of its own – a ground for refusal under Art. 13, Para. 2, item 1 of the APIA. A three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the refusal of the minister. By decision of 9 October 2014 the SAC repealed a first instance decision, as well as the refusal by the minister. The court held that the information sought is information on the environment in the meaning of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) and in the meaning of the Environment Protection Act (EPA). The text of Article 13, par. 2 of the APIA providing the possibility of restricting access to preparatory documents is inapplicable to information concerning the environment and in particular the emissions of harmful substances. The court noted that in Article 20, par. 6 of the EPA the legislator has provided explicitly that the right of access to public information concerning the environment and in particular the emissions of harmful substances cannot be refused or restricted.
- Decision No. 3421/11.03.2014 of the SAC, Seventh Division (in Bulgarian)
- Decision no.11951/09.10.2014 of the SAC, Five-member Panel (in Bulgarian)
9. Lilyana Valcheva vs. the Regional Inspectorate of Education – region of Haskovo
The citizen Liliana Valcheva requested from the Regional Inspectorate of Education – Haskovo (RIE) information about inspections held in a particular school in the town of Topolovgrad (Haskovo Region). The grounds of the refusal of the head of the RIE were that the APIA does not provide for the form requested by the citizen – by e-mail. The Administrative Court Haskovo (ACH) repealed the refusal The first instance court decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative court. The supreme justices emphasized that the request for information to be provided by e-mail is a valid request since the APIA provides for the provision of information on a material carrier.
- Decision No. 189/17.10.2012 (in Bulgarian) of the Administrative Court Haskovo
- Decision No. 1864/11.02.2014 (in Bulgarian) of the Supreme Administrative Court
10. Marieta Sivkova vs. the Municipality of Yambol
Ms. Marieta Sivkova from the city of Yambol requested from the Municipality of Yambol a copy of a friendly settlement of a court dispute concluded by the municipality and a building company. The Secretary of the Municipality of Yambol left the request without consideration with the argument that under the APIA access could be sought to information, but not to specific documents. The refusal was appealed under the procedure of Art. 197 – 200 of the Administrative – Procedural Codex. The Administrative Court – Yambol (ACY) repealed the refusal, assuming that the request contains all necessary attributes under the APIA, therefore it cannot be left without consideration and the secretary of the municipality should issue a decision on the merits of the request. The ACY’s Ruling was appealed by the municipality before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The appeal however, was left without consideration at two court instances. The Ruling of the ACY entered into effect.
- Ruling No. 182/23.05.2014 of the ACY (in Bulgarian)
- Ruling No. 9366/04.07.2014 of the SAC (in Bulgarian)
- Ruling No. 12067/13.10.2014 of the SAC, Five-member Panel (in Bulgarian)