This was the conclusion reached by the SCAC in the second case brought by Nikolay Marchenko (“Bivol”) against the refusal of the Director of the Kozloduy NPP.
The first refusal by the Director of the Kozloduy NPP to provide access to information regarding the members of the Audit Committee of the Kozloduy NPP and their average salaries for the last 10 years was on the grounds that the information is not public under the APIA. This refusal was repealed by a SCAC judgment, which is reflected in the February 2024 AIP newsletter.
After the SCAC repealed the refusal by the Kozloduy NPP Director to provide information regarding the identities of the members of the Audit Committee over the past 10 years and their average salaries by year, the director of the Kozloduy NPP once again issued a refusal — with a new decision dated 22 March 2024 — this time on the grounds that affected third parties had explicitly expressed an objection, and that no overriding public interest existed.
Тhe second refusal was also appealed with the support of AIP.
With Judgment No. 8133/10 June 2024 of the SCAC, Second Division, panel 77, on administrative case No. 3834/2024, Judge Evgeniya Baeva repealed the refusal and returned the case to the Kozloduy NPP Director for a new ruling on the information request, together with instructions on the interpretation and application of the law.
The court held that the information regarding the members of the Audit Committee and their average salaries should be provided to the requestor, as there is an overriding public interest, since the requested information aims to increase transparency and accountability of the obliged body under Article 3, par. 2, item 2 of the APIA. The public body’s assessment that there is no such overriding public interest is in contradiction with the legal definition given in § 1, item 6 of the Supplementary Provisions of the APIA. The court pointed out that remunerations paid by entities operating with budgetary funds undoubtedly relate to public life in the country. Therefore, this concerns the requestor’s ability to form an opinion on the activities of the obliged body and specifically on the expenditure of public funds. The court noted that the complainant is a journalist, and the information is necessary for informing the public.
In light of the above, the court held that the appealed refusal was unlawful and should be repealed. The case file was returned to the public body for a new decision on the request. The obliged body is instructed to provide, with the new decision, the requestor with information regarding the members of the Audit Committee and their average salaries for the period from 30 June 2013 to 30 June 2023.
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.