Advocacy for the Right to Access to Information in 2024
![]() Alexander Kasumov, Executive Director of Access to Information Programme |
Implications of the attempt to amend the Access to Information (RTI) Act in 2023.
The proposed amendments by a group of GERB MPs in 2023 were the most severe blow to the right of access to public information in a decade, as they undermined a number of provisions in the law that were considered to be unshakable. Despite the fact that those criticised in the public debate by the ODI were not supported by the majority in the National Assembly, attempts are being made to put some of them into practice. For example, in practice there are refusals of access to public information on the grounds that the applicant does not have a registered address in the municipality from which the information is requested. It remains to be seen how the administrative courts apply the provision newly adopted in 2023, according to which abuse of rights is taken into account when awarding costs in FOIA cases.
SLAPP cases against journalists, media and activists and reactions
In recent years, there has been an increase in lawsuits filed by politicians and businessmen, as well as by commercial companies against media, journalists or civil activists. Some of these show clear signs of the so-called sham lawsuits (SLAPPs), brought with the sole purpose of censoring or threatening critics of public policies. Such are, for example, the lawsuits filed by the insurance company Lev Ins against the website Mediapool with a claim of BGN 1 million, the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant against the civil activist Natalia Stancheva for half a million BGN, and others.
During the year, the Access to Information Programme (AIP) publicly expressed positions on some of these cases in partnership with the Association of European Journalists - Bulgaria (AEJ). Following a public appeal by both organisations at the beginning of the year, the claim against Natalia Stancheva for half a million leva was withdrawn. The two NGOs also raised publicly concern in December 2024 on the occasion of a lawsuit filed by the state-owned Southwest University and its dean against the historian Stefan Dechev, an academical who criticised them. In April 2024, the AEJ, AIP and the International Coalition Against SLAPP Lawsuits in Europe CASE co-organised the roundtable "Daphne's Law: better protection of journalists from judicial harassment", where the challenges to freedom of expression in relation to so-called "sham cases" were discussed with the participation of Bulgarian and international experts.
Measures for the transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive of the European Union
Between December 2023 and February 2024, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) composed a working group tasked with preparation of amendments intended to transpose the Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”). Its work was an extension of the broader Working Group on Access to Information and Media Pluralism attached to the Rule of Law Council, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Representatives from the Ministry of Justice, the AIP, university professors, judges and lawyers participated in the work ob the Anti-SLAPP Directive transposition. As a result of the activity, the provisions of a new chapter in the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) were drafted and proposed establishing a special procedure in this category of civil cases. The proposal provided for a definition and criteria for identifying SLAPP cases, the possibility of early proceedings termination, limiting the possibilities for injunction in the forma of respondent's bank accounts blocking, the possibility of guaranteeing the respondent's claim for costs reimbursement, etc.The results of the working group functioning were presented at a meeting of the Rule of Law Council on 19 February 2024.
In summer a new working group was formed, which included almost the same experts, with some new members. At a meeting on 12 September 2024, it was decided to build upon the already elaborated proposal to the CPC. The work continues, albeit at a rather slower pace.
Interpretative case on whether legal persons can claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage
In July 2024, a hearing was held on Interpretative Case No. 1/2023 of the Plenum of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and the General Assembly of the Civil, Criminal and Commercial Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC). That is to say, practically all the Supreme Court judges are involved in deciding on the interpretative question. The question the SCC and the SAC discuss is formulated as: "Do legal entities have substantive standing to be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damages?". The case was initiated due to identified contradictory practice, as in few decisions of the SCC the opinion that prevailed for decades that legal persons cannot claim moral damages was changed to the opposite understanding.
The Supreme Bar Council, representatives of the academic community and the Access to Information Programme submitted arguments and opinions on the case. The AIP brief supported by AEJ was also orally presented in the plenary supreme courts session. Four of the submitted opinions were publicly presented in the open session on 10 July.
According to the opinion prepared by the AIP brief supported by AEJ a positive answer to this question would open the door to the so-called SLAPP cases. Even with the previous practice of the courts, which firmly did not allow legal entities to sue for non-pecuniary damages, there have been a series of legal actions trying to change the court practice in suing for publications media, journalists and civil activists:
The concern of the case was widely reported in both the specialized publication Advokatski pregled, and on the media such as Capital, Dnevnik, Mediapul, Sega, 24 Hours, Darik, Nova News, etc.
Both Supreme Courts are yet to rule on the interpretation issue.