This was the conclusion reached by a court panel of the Sofia-City Administrative Court (SCAC) on a case brought by Mariela Petrova against the refusal of the Mayor of Lesichovo to provide information regarding contracts concluded by the Lesichovo Municipality for external services related to controlling the population of stray animals.
The following information was requested with an information request dated 16 March 2024:
- Contract(s) signed with veterinary clinics/shelters/foundations/other organizations for the castration and sheltering of stray dogs and cats;
- Schedule for visits by the aforementioned clinics/shelters/foundations/other organizations to the territory of the Lesichovo Municipality for the purpose of counting/capturing/castrating/vaccinating stray dogs and cats, and any reports drafted during visits and activities performed in the last 12 months; and
- Amount(s) paid to the aforementioned veterinary clinics/shelters/foundations/other organizations in connection with any performed activities related to counting stray dogs, castration, vaccination, sheltering, and a copy of the invoices issued by them.
With a Judgment dated 9 April 2024, the Mayor issued a refusal on the grounds that an affected third party, namely the A. U. Bulgaria Foundation, had explicitly denied consent.
The refusal was appealed before the SCAC with the support of AIP.
With Judgment No. 9603/24 June 2024 of the SCAC, Second Division, panel 41, on administrative case No. 4450/2024, Judge Luiza Hristova repealed the refusal and returned the case to the Mayor for a new ruling on the information request, together with instructions on the interpretation and application of the law.
The court held that the request for access was targeted at information directly related to the Municipality’s activities in connection with the implementation of the National Programme for Controlling the Population of Stray Dogs on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, as well as of the respective municipal programme and the action plan of the Municipality, the procedures for their implementation, and the financing and accountability mechanism, i.e., the requested information concerned public life in the Municipality. Therefore, the information constituted administrative public information, as it was collected, created, and kept in connection with the activities of the obliged body.
The court pointed out that an “overriding public interest” within the meaning of § 1, item 6 of the Supplementary Provisions of the APIA (Access to Public Information Act) exists when the information is requested with the aim to uncover corruption and abuse of power, and to promote the transparency and accountability of the bodies specified in Article 3. The overriding public interest in the present case is presumed, as the information is related to the lawful execution of the municipality’s activities in implementing the cited programme, which includes counting stray dogs, castration, marking, vaccination, deworming, and returning treated stray dogs to their locations. Providing this information would always contribute to enhancing transparency and accountability to the public with regards to the municipality’s activities.
Since the defendant is an obliged body under the APIA and the requested information is public, it is required to provide it. The only grounds indicated in the appealed refusal relate to the objection of a third party – a foundation – to the provision of the requested information. The court did not agree with the argument that this constituted grounds for refusal, as according to Article 31, par. 4 of the APIA, in the case of explicit objection by a third party, the relevant public body should provide the requested public information in such a manner and to such an extent so as to avoid revealing information concerning the interests of the third party. In other words, the defendant was obliged to redact the information identifying the third party and provide the remaining information. Moreover, such information is contained only in item 1 of the request. The remaining information concerns documents attesting to visits, counting, capturing, castration, and vaccination, as well as the reports drafted in connection with these activities, and the amounts paid for their execution. This information can be provided by simply redacting the relevant data about the contractor. Furthermore, the grounds under Article 37, par. 1, item 2 of the APIA do not apply when there is an overriding public interest, which is the case here. Given that the implementation of activities under the National Programme for Controlling the Population of Stray Dogs on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is financed with funds from the state budget, the municipal budget, and international programmes and projects, the information regarding such implementation would always contribute to increasing the transparency and accountability of the obliged bodies. Therefore, access to the requested information has to be granted, regardless of the disagreement of the third party, unless the information constitutes a protected secret under other legislation.
According to Article 31, par. 5 of the APIA, the consent of a third party is also not required in cases where the third party is an obliged body and the information concerning it is public information within the meaning of the APIA. In this regard, according to Article 3, par. 2, item 2 of the APIA, this legislation also covers access to public information created and stored by natural and legal persons, but only with respect to activities they perform that are funded with resources from the consolidated state budget or from European Union funds or provided by the European Union under specific projects and programmes. Therefore, if the activities in question within the municipality are assigned to a foundation, to the extent that they are financed from the aforementioned sources, the foundation itself is obliged to provide access to information about their execution. This is another justification that the defendant should provide access to the requested public information.
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.