Here you can find information about the most significant cases supported by the Access to Information Programme (AIP) that received court rulings in favor of the claimants in 2024. The cases are presented in the form of a brief description of the submitted request, the received response, and the court’s decision. Copies of the court rulings are also attached.
More information about the cases supported by AIP in 2024 can be found in the News section.
1. Nikolay Nedelchev (Sofia) vs. Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant
On January 12, 2024, Nikolay Nedelchev submitted a request to the Ministry of Energy (ME) asking for information related to publicly disclosed data on budget damage amounting to over 150 million BGN, allegedly caused by actions and inactions of Kozloduy NPP. Specifically, he requested information on the law firm providing legal assistance to the plant, whether any employees were sanctioned or dismissed, whether inspections were carried out by the Public Financial Inspection Agency (ADFI) or the National Audit Office, and the results of such inspections.
In a letter dated January 29, 2024, the Minister of Energy’s Chief of Staff forwarded the request to Kozloduy NPP, stating that ME does not possess the requested information.
On February 13, 2024, the Executive Director of Kozloduy NPP denied access, claiming the requested information does not fall under the scope of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), as Kozloduy NPP is not a subject obliged to provide such information under Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the APIA.
With AIP’s support, the refusal was appealed before the Sofia City Administrative Court (SCAC).
With Decision No. 9158/19.06.2024 by SCAC, Second Division, Panel 27, in case No. 3356/2024, Judge Dimitar Petrov annulled the refusal and returned the case to Kozloduy NPP for a new decision.
The court ruled that the refusal was unlawful because Kozloduy NPP is indeed a public entity under the APIA. Its capital is owned by the Bulgarian Energy Holding, which is 100% state-owned. Therefore, the NPP is also considered a public entity and must provide access to public information.
2. Mirela Veselinova (Legal World Magazine) vs. Anti-Corruption Commission (CPCONPI)
On March 29, 2024, Mirela Veselinova requested information from the Commission for Counteracting Corruption and Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property (CPCONPI) regarding:
-
The gross and base salaries of the CPCONPI chairperson and members prior to the legal split of the commission;
-
The same information for the members of the Confiscation Commission after October 6, 2023;
-
The same for the Anti-Corruption Commission after October 6, 2023;
-
Whether there was any overlap in remuneration for performing roles in both commissions.
No response was received within the legally mandated 14-day period. With AIP’s support, a silent refusal was appealed.
With Decision No. 13787/02.08.2024 by SCAC, Second Division, Panel 32, in case No. 4872/2024, Judge Krasimira Milachkova annulled the silent refusal and returned the case for a formal decision.
The court emphasized that public bodies are required to issue explicit decisions either granting or refusing access to information. Silent refusals are unlawful.
3. Georgi Marchev (Sofia) vs. Central Election Commission (CEC)
In the fall of 2023, journalist Georgi Marchev (then with factcheck.bg) requested information from the CEC on which political party nominated three citizens who served as members of election commissions in London between 2015 and 2021. These individuals were arrested in the UK in 2023 on suspicion of spying for Russia.
The Deputy Chair of the CEC responded that the information was available in a public announcement dated August 18, 2023, on the commission’s website. However, this was not accurate. The response was appealed with AIP’s support.
During the case, the CEC argued that the entire commission, not the Deputy Chair, should be the defendant. The court rejected this, and the appeal process delayed the case by nearly a year.
With Decision No. 9762/25.06.2024 by SCAC, Second Division, Panel 29, in case No. 9540/2023, Judge Tanka Tsoneva annulled the refusal and returned the case to the CEC with legal interpretation instructions.
4. Union of Prison Staff in Bulgaria vs. General Directorate “Execution of Sentences” (GDES)
In September 2023, the Union of Prison Staff requested detailed information from GDES on:
-
Fines imposed under the Public Procurement Act on the director and employees;
-
Legal expenses related to appeals against such fines.
On October 6, 2023, the director refused access, citing that administrative penalties are personal responsibility.
With AIP’s support, the refusal was appealed to the Pazardzhik Administrative Court.
With Decision No. 383/30.01.2024 by Pazardzhik Administrative Court, Panel IX, in case No. 1071/2023, Judge Maria Koleva annulled the refusal and returned the case with legal interpretation instructions.
The court stated that the refusal failed to justify how the requested data were personal. The union requested aggregated information on penalties and fines, not personal data. Such information is important for public oversight and accountability regarding the use of public funds.
The court also ruled that if personal data were indeed involved, the agency should have followed the procedure for obtaining third-party consent or assessed whether an overriding public interest justified disclosure.
The decision is final.
5. Dimitar Stoyanov (BIRD) vs. Ministry of Finance
In a request dated July 26, 2023, information was sought that is contained in the text of the arbitral award of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of the World Bank and the related agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Sovereign Fund of the Sultanate of Oman, regarding the arbitration case between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Sovereign Fund of the Sultanate of Oman.
By a decision dated August 18, 2023, the Chief of Staff of the Minister of Finance denied access. The reasoning was that a provision of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (published in SG No. 110/2001) was applicable. Specifically, Article 48(4) of the Convention was cited, which states that the Centre may not publish the arbitral award without the consent of the parties.
With the support of the Access to Information Programme (AIP), the refusal was appealed before the Administrative Court of Sofia City (ACSC).
By Decision No. 526/19.01.2024 of ACSC, Second Division, Panel 29, in Administrative Case No. 9272/2024, Judge Polina Velichkova annulled the decision of the Chief of Staff and returned the case for a new ruling on the request, with guidelines for interpretation and application of the law.
The court held that the respondent’s reference to Article 48 of the Convention was unfounded. According to this provision, the Centre cannot publishthe award without the parties’ consent. However, this does not imply confidentiality regarding the arbitral decisions themselves. The provision merely restricts the Centre’s ability to publish without consent, but not the general right of access to the award, particularly if consent exists.
The decision is final.
-
Decision No. 526/19.01.2024 of ACSC, Second Division, Panel 29, Case No. 9272/2024, Judge Polina Velichkova 6. Emilia Dimitrova (“Za istinata”) vs. Sevlievo Municipality
On August 16, 2024, Emilia Dimitrova submitted a request to the mayor of Sevlievo Municipality for information on the linear schedule for the execution of construction and installation works under the investment project "Reconstruction of street water pipelines in the central part of the town of Sevlievo" – divided into twelve independent phases. The schedule includes the reconstruction and replacement of street water pipelines and service connections in the town center.
By decision dated August 30, 2024, the Secretary of the Municipality denied the request, claiming that the information constituted a trade secret under Article 102(1) of the Public Procurement Act (PPA).
After consulting the Access to Information Programme (AIP), the refusal was appealed before the Administrative Court - Gabrovo.
By Decision No. 1419/11.11.2024 of the Administrative Court - Gabrovo, Fourth Division, Case No. 359/2024, Judge Galin Kosev annulled the refusal and returned the request for a new ruling.
The judge emphasized that according to § 1, item 5 of the Additional Provisions of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), facts, data, decisions, and information related to economic activity, which are in the public interest, do not constitute a trade secret, even if they are normally protected. In order for Article 37(1)(1) of APIA to apply, there must first be a trade secret, but that alone cannot justify denial of access if an overriding public interest is present.
The contested decision stated that the requested information was confidential under Article 102(1) of the PPA. However, under Article 102(2), participants in public procurement procedures may not claim confidentiality regarding parts of their bids that are subject to evaluation. In this case, as the applicant stated—and the respondent did not dispute—the deadline for executing the public contract was a criterion for evaluating the bids, along with price. The linear schedule reflects the sequence and duration of each construction activity and is directly linked to the execution term, thus cannot be a trade secret.
The decision is final.
-
Decision No. 1419/11.11.2024 of the Administrative Court – Gabrovo, Fourth Division, Case No. 359/2024, Judge Galin Kosev 7. Vesela Nikolaeva (Veliko Tarnovo) vs. Svishtov Municipality
On August 7, 2024, Vesela Nikolaeva submitted a request to the mayor of Svishtov seeking budget-related information for cultural events, itemized in eight questions:
-
What is the actual budget spent by Svishtov Municipality on cultural events for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024?
-
What was the planned cultural budget for each of those years?
-
What funds were allocated to cultural events of international significance in those years?
-
How much funding was allocated to the “Folkloren Izvor” festival in Tsarevets village in those years?
-
What were the revenues from overnight stays during the festival for each of those years?
-
How many Bulgarian folklore groups/performers participated in the festival each year?
-
What was the total number of performers/groups at the festival each year?
-
What were the honorarium expenses for performers at the festival each year?
On August 14, 2024, the mayor of Svishtov denied access to the requested information, arguing that since the applicant’s permanent address is outside the municipality and she owns no property there, she had no legal interest.
With AIP support, the refusal was appealed before the Administrative Court – Veliko Tarnovo.
By Decision No. 3684/27.11.2024 of the Administrative Court – Veliko Tarnovo, Panel X, Case No. 711/2024, Judge Ivelina Yaneva partially upheld and partially annulled the refusal – confirming it for items 1, 2, and 5, and annulling it for items 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
The court found the applicant’s objection valid: the right to access public information is not conditioned on having a direct legal interest, permanent address, or property in the municipality. Unlike challenging administrative acts, APIA does not require legal interest for information requests. This principle has been established by the Constitutional Court (Decision No. 7/1996) and is firmly supported by consistent judicial practice: the public has a right to government transparency.
The court did confirm that some of the requested information (items 1, 2, and 5) either did not exist or was not held by the Municipality at the time of the request:
-
For items 1 and 2: Information on 2024 expenditures was unavailable because the year had not concluded.
-
For item 5: The Municipality collects tourist tax, not data on actual revenues from overnight stays.
For these parts, the refusal was lawful. For the rest, the refusal was unlawful, and the request was returned for a new decision.
The decision is final.
-
Decision No. 3684/27.11.2024 of the Administrative Court – Veliko Tarnovo, Panel X, Case No. 711/2024, Judge Ivelina Yaneva
8. Elitsa Simeonova ("Radio Free Europe") vs. Regional Inspectorate of Environment and Water (RIEW) – Burgas
On July 22, 2024, Elitsa Simeonova submitted a request to the Regional Inspectorate of Environment and Water (RIEW) – Burgas, seeking information about identified violations and imposed sanctions related to the discharge of wastewater into the Black Sea during the period from January 1, 2022, to July 15, 2024.
The request specified that the preferred form of receiving the information was copies provided electronically or via an internet address where the data is stored or published.
By a decision dated August 5, 2024, the director of RIEW – Burgas denied the provision of copies of the issued documents, arguing that under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), only information, not document copies, may be obtained. Instead, the director provided a summary of violations and sanctions.
With the support of the Access to Information Programme (AIP), this decision was appealed before the Pernik Administrative Court.
By Decision No. 2084/28.11.2024of the Pernik Administrative Court, Panel II, in administrative case No. 542/2024, Judge Slava Georgieva annulled the decision in the part that determined the form of access as a written summary and returned the case file to RIEW – Burgas for granting access in the form requested by the applicant.
The court held that the requested information constitutes environmental information within the meaning of Article 19, items 2 and 6 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), specifically relating to the state of environmental components, potential pollution factors under Article 5 EPA, and administrative measures taken in response. The case concerns water as an environmental component and the control and administrative measures linked to compliance or non-compliance with permits for wastewater discharge into the Black Sea.
Requested information includes issued violation acts (AUAN), penalty decrees (PDs), inspection reports for ongoing sanctions, and orders related to imposition, suspension, resumption, cancellation, or reduction of sanctions. As per the law, the RIEW directors conduct inspections and issue administrative and punitive acts, all of which fall under "administrative measures" within the meaning of Article 19, item 2 of EPA and Article 2, item 3(b) of the Aarhus Convention.
The court found the director’s reasoning inconsistent with these provisions, and with Article 26, para. 1, item 3 and para. 4 of the APIA, which stipulate that one form of public information access is copies of documents, and that authorities must respect the applicant’s preferred format.
The decision is final.
— Decision No. 2084/28.11.2024, Pernik Administrative Court, Panel II, Case No. 542/2024, Judge Slava Georgieva
9. Vyara Mladenova (Elin Pelin) vs. Ministry of Agriculture and Food
In an application dated June 16, 2024, Vyara Mladenova requested access from the Minister of Agriculture and Food to information concerning the exclusion of pastures located in the land of the village of Bogdanlia from the "Permanently Grass-Covered Areas" layer, at the request of the mayor of Elin Pelin Municipality. Specifically, the following documents were requested:
-
Application reg. № 07-55 dated 30.01.2024 from the mayor of Elin Pelin Municipality;
-
Letter outgoing № 07-55 dated 07.02.2024 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF);
-
Application reg. № 07-55 dated 20.02.2024 from the mayor of Elin Pelin Municipality;
-
Order № RD 20-34 dated 29.02.2024 of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, along with report reg. № 93-1340 dated 29.02.2024;
-
Letter outgoing № 07-55 dated 29.02.2024 from MAF.
In a letter dated July 5, 2024, the Minister of Agriculture and Food denied access, arguing that the requested information was preparatory in nature and lacked independent significance.
With the support of Access to Information Programme (AIP), the refusal was appealed before the Administrative Court - Sofia Region (ACSR).
By Decision № 1537/06.12.2024 of ACSR, Panel IX, in administrative case № 1049/2024, Judge Maria Zhelyazkova overturned the refusal and returned the file to the Minister for a new decision, with instructions for interpretation and application of the law.
The judge found it undisputed that the information contained in the documents listed in points 1-5 of the request, including the report RD 20-34 dated 29.02.2024, based on which the pastures in Elin Pelin were excluded from the "Permanently Grass-Covered Areas" layer, constitutes official information (under Article 11 of the Access to Public Information Act - APIA). Even if the respondent's argument were accepted that Article 13, para. 2, item 1 of the APIA applies (allowing restrictions on access to such information), Article 13, para. 4 provides that the restriction is lifted in cases of overriding public interest. The law (§ 1, item 6 of APIA) presumes that such an interest exists when the requested information enhances transparency and accountability in the activities of a public body, with the burden of proof to the contrary on the respondent. Since no grounds for applying the exception were established, the contested refusal was deemed unlawful.
The decision is final. 10. Doroteya Dachkova (Sega newspaper) vs. Kozloduy NPP
In a request for access to public information dated April 26, 2024, addressed to Kozloduy NPP, Doroteya Dachkova requested access to the following public information:
-
How many workers and employees at the NPP received a medical opinion of “UNFIT” for work in environments with ionizing radiation from the beginning of 2019 to the present?
-
How many received a medical opinion of “FIT” for such work over the same period?
-
Who conducts the medical supervision of workers in the newly created structural unit under Article 64, para. 3, sentence two of the Health Act?
In a letter dated May 10, 2024, the director of Kozloduy NPP denied access. The letter claimed that public information must already exist and should allow citizens to form an opinion on the activities of public bodies. It argued that the APIA is not a mechanism for asking questions and that access to personal data falls outside its scope. It further stated that the information requested did not fall within the scope of the APIA and referred to national security and public interest concerns due to the strategic nature of the Kozloduy NPP.
With AIP's support, the refusal was appealed before the Administrative Court - Sofia City (ACSC).
By Decision № 27292/16.12.2024 of ACSC, Second Division, Panel 25, in administrative case № 7437/2024, Judge Boryana Petkova overturned the refusal and returned the case to the NPP director for a new decision and provision of the requested information within 7 days.
The court found that the requested information—regarding medical supervision of persons working with ionizing radiation, including medical fitness assessments—is of public importance. It concerns public health and safety and is classified as official public information under Article 11 in conjunction with Article 2 of APIA. According to the Health Act (Article 64, para. 2, item 2), protection from ionizing radiation includes medical monitoring and assessment of fitness to perform specific duties. This is conducted by qualified physicians from the National Center for Radiobiology and Radiation Protection (NCRRP) or medical institutions meeting regulatory standards.
The court emphasized that the requested data—namely the number of employees assessed as "fit" or "unfit"—does not seek personal health data, making the argument of potential identification through numbers illogical.
The third question related to changes introduced in § 88 and § 89 of the Law amending the Renewable Energy Act (State Gazette, issue 86, 13.10.2023), concerning the requirement that nuclear plant employers provide medical supervision through in-house structural units. The request does not seek the identities of the medical personnel but rather whether they meet the legal requirements.
The medical opinion determining an individual’s fitness is issued by a licensed physician with specialization in "Radiobiology" or "Radiation Hygiene," per Ordinance № 11/2018. Nuclear plants with structural units under Article 64, para. 3, sentence two, of the Health Act must perform both preliminary and periodic medical assessments, and results are stored in personal medical files for at least 30 years or until the person would have turned 75.
Lastly, the court concluded that the functioning of these medical monitoring units is of overriding public interest due to implications for occupational safety and radiation protection. Therefore, access to this information supports transparency and accountability of a public entity concerning public health.
The decision is final.
-
Decision № 27292/16.12.2024 of ACSC, Second Division, Panel 25, in case № 7437/2024, Judge Boryana Petkova
-
-