This was the conclusion reached by a panel of the Razgrad Administrative Court in a case brought by Radmila Kovacheva (Isperih) against the refusal of the Sofia-City Regional Food Safety Directorate (SCRFSD).
On 29 May 2024, Radmila Kovacheva submitted a request for access to public information to the Director of the SCRFSD. She requested public information regarding an inspection conducted following a report submitted by her with incoming reg. No. 392/11 January 2024 in the SCRFSD register, and in particular:
1. Was a report of findings drawn up? What is its number and date? I would like a copy of the report of findings related to the inspection;
2. Was a report prepared in connection with the inspection? I would like a copy of the inspection report;
3. Were any instructions issued as a result of the inspection? What are their numbers and dates? I would like copies of all instructions issued in connection with the inspection; and
4. In the last two years, have other inspections been conducted at “Veterinary Center Ugovet” in Sofia, at 1532 Kazichene, 50 Tsar Boris III St.? Please provide any reports of findings, reports, and instructions issued in connection with such inspections.
In the last two years, have other inspections been conducted at “Veterinary Center Ugovet” in Sofia, at 1532 Kazichene, 50 Tsar Boris III St.? Please provide any protocols, reports, and instructions issued from these inspections.
With a decision dated 4 June 2024, the Director of the SCRFSD issued a refusal on the grounds that the requested information was not public within the meaning of the APIA and constituted a professional secret according to Regulation 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The refusal was appealed before the Razgrad Administrative Court with the support of AIP.
With Judgment No. 677/16 September 2024 of the Razgrad Administrative Court, panel I, on administrative case No. 155/2024, Judge Svetla Robeva repealed the refusal and returned the case to the Director of the SCRFSD for a new ruling on the information request, together with instructions on the interpretation and application of the law.
The judge pointed out that since the obliged body considers the requested information to be a professional secret, it was required to provide reasons justifying such a conclusion. However, the body has not specified which part of the requested data and documents fall under the scope of the professional secret, nor how disclosing it would jeopardize the purpose of the control, the protection of any commercial interests, or any legal protection. No reasons were adduced as to why the public body could not provide information regarding the measures taken based on the report with inc. reg. No. 392/11 January 2024, as well as public access to the results of the official control conducted in relation to the “Veterinary Center Ugovet” in Sofia for the period specified in the request. Due to the lack of reasoning, the court was unable to exercise control over the legality of the decision.
Furthermore, the court found that part of the requested information concerned the activities of a third party - “Veterinary Center Ugovet” - but the public body had not fulfilled its obligation under Article 31, par. 2 of the APIA to request the consent of the third party for providing the information. Accordingly, in the event of an explicit refusal from the third party and based on Article 37, par. 1, item 2 of the APIA, the public body is required to assess whether there is an overriding public interest as defined in § 1, item 6 of the Supplementary Provisions of the APIA.
The public incorrectly denied the complainant’s right to receive the requested information. The legislator does not exclude whistleblowers from the scope of persons who are entitled to receive public information under the APIA. According to Article 4, par. 1 of the APIA, every citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria has the right to access public information under the conditions and procedures set forth in this law, unless a special procedure for requesting, receiving, and distributing such information is provided in another legislation. The requested information would allow the requestor to form an opinion on the activities of the SCRFSD related to the implementation of official control; therefore, it is public information within the meaning of Article 2 of the APIA. The right to receive public information guarantees citizens' awareness of ongoing public processes, including the measures that the competent authorities take within the scope of official control concerning healthcare and humane treatment of animals.
The court judgment is final.
================================================
The publication is part of the project "Legal Help to Strategic Access to Information Cases". This project is funded by the United States Agency for International Development and the German Marshall Fund of the United States. All publications in the frames of the project are funded by the United States Agency for International Development and the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Access to Information Programme Foundation and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or GMF.