The court instructed the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW) to provide the legal analysis of the Bansko ski-zone concession. The WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature, formerly World Wildlife Fund) had requested access to the MOEW legal analysis explaining why the concession area of the ski resort in the National Park “Pirin” was exceeded with 65 hectares. The Ministry’s Chief Secretary refused to provide the documents referring to the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 2, item 1 of the APIA – preparatory information (the information relates to the preparation of acts, and has no significance in itself) and Article 13, paragraph 2, item 2 – the information is related to the negotiations, led with the concessionaire in order to clarify the parties’ positions on the concession agreement, i.e. the requested legal analysis contain opinions and positions regarding current or upcoming negotiations. Finally, as another ground for refusal the decision states that the legal analysis affect the interests of third parties (the law firms that prepared the analysis ) and they have not provided consent to disclose the information.
In decision no. 5430 of 8 August 2013 on administrative case no. 2496/2013 (in Bulgarian), the Administrative Court - Sofia City found the refusal to be unlawful. On the one hand, the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 2 do not apply in this case since there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested information given the importance of the problem of exploitation of large areas in the national park. According to the court, under Article 13, paragraph 4 of the APIA access to administrative public information cannot be refused if there is overriding public interest.
On the other hand, the judge observes that the “lack of the third party’s consent” exemption is also irrelevant. When a contract is awarded by a public body, paid for with public funds, the results of the execution belongs to the contracting authority and in these cases the interests of the contractor are not and cannot be affected by informing the public of the results of the execution, in this case – legal analysis . Hence, the MOEW has no grounds for asking for the contractor’s consent since its consent / dissent is irrelevant. The court repealed the MOEW Chief Secretary refusal and instructed the ministry to provide the information sought within 14 days.