The President of the Sofia City Court Should Provide Information on Delayed Criminal and Civil Cases
Request
On 18 February 2013 Doroteya Dachkova (journalist from “Sega” newspaper) requested from the President of the Sofia City Court (SCC) access to information on the delayed criminal and civil cases.
Refusal
By decision of 4 March 2013 the President of the SCC – Vladimira Yaneva – refused to provide the information arguing that it was of preparatory character and had no significance in itself (under Article 13, Par. 2 of the APIA), since it relates to the issuance of final administrative documents/acts by the SCC President and by the Supreme Judicial Council Inspectorate.
Complaint
The refusal was challenged before the ACSC with the argument that it violates the principle of legal foreseeability, because without explicit reasoning the SCC President was changing her practice. The SCC President had provided such information in a previous case. Furthermore, the complaint argued that the information sought has significance in itself and is not created with the purpose of issuing another final act, i.e. the restriction under Article 13, Par. 2 of the APIA is inapplicable.
First Instance Court Decision
By decision no. 4010 of 14 June 2013 (in Bulgarian), the Administrative Court Sofia - City repealed the refusal and instructed the SCC to provide the requested information. The court held that the information has significance in itself, since it is of statistical and factual nature, and is not directly part of the drafting of further documents/acts. The court noted that the SCC President does not deny that her office had provided access to such information in previous years. It is not possible that the access to such information is in one instance free, but in another – restricted under Article 13, Par. 2, item 1 of the APIA. Besides, court hearings are in principle public, respectively the information on the case number, the judge-rapporteur, the court’s documents/acts, ruled in open hearings, are all public. The aggregate of this information to a certain period in a separate consultation should also be accessible to the public through a request under the APIA.
Cassation appeal
The ACSC decision was challenged by the SCC President with the same arguments, namely that the information is of preparatory nature.
Court Hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court
A sole hearing was held on 18 November 2013. AIP’s attorney-at-law, representing the APIA applicant, argued that according to the European Court of Human Rights’ case-law public trust in the judiciary is one of the pillars of a democratic society, and transparency and public awareness, including on issues of backlogs and the way the judiciary functions, are of paramount importance.
Cassation (second) Instance Decision
By decision no. 132 of 7 January 2014 (in Bulgarian), the SAC upheld the ACSC decision repealing the refusal. The justices stated that the requested information has significance in itself and is not directly related to the issuance of a further document/act, i.e. it is not merely preparatory information. The information reflects the performance of the judge’s duties of delivery of judicial acts within a reasonable timeframe, which together with the delivery of the right acts ensures good justice, i.e. the quality implementation of the state provided judicial power.