Access to Information Programme | Court cases - Report about Bulgarian citizens and companies who were involved in oil trade with Iraqi companies or their representatives during the Saddam regime

William Popov vs. The Ministry of Emergency Situations

First Instance Court – administrative case No. 8978/2009, SAC, Fifth division
Second Instance Court – administrаtive case No. 13930/2010, SAC, Five member panel

Request:
On May 7, 2009, William Popov filed a request to the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES) for the contract for the design, construction, and maintenance of the Aerospace Observation Center between “Kontrax” Company and the MES. He also requested information about the performance of the contract.

Refusal:
With a letter as of May 27, 2009 the MES notified the requestor of the extension of the period for responding to the request because of the substantial volume of the information sought. With a decision as of June 5, 2009 the Ministry granted access to the information in the form of consultation. All financial information of the cost of the Center was provided, including cost of “equipment for receiving visual information in real time from the point of crisis.” Thanks to this equipment the Prime Minister and the Minister had the opportunity to watch in real time the rescuing of a drowning man in Pancharevo Lake. Access to the rest of the information was denied on the ground that pursuant to the APIA, a requestor may only seek access to information but not access to documents.

Complaint:
The partial refusal was challenged before the SAC with the AIP help. The complainant argued that the requested documents related directly to the activities of the MES and that the obliged authority wrongly held that the APIA does not provide for access to specific documents, but only to information.

Developments in the Court of First Instance:
At the first open hearing, the case was adjourned in order to enable the constitution of the Ministry of Interior (MoI) as a party (in the meantime the MES was closed, and the MoI was its successor). In June 2009, the case was heard in an open court session and was scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
With a decision as of September 8, 2010 the SAC dismissed the complaint, considering that a description of the information sought was missing.

Court Appeal:
The decision was appealed before a five-member panel of the SAC. The complaint stated that there is a well established judicial practice on the question that people can seek access to documents under the APIA. Relevant case-law of the SAC was cited – when the Court found that the request for a specific document is a valid request for access to information.

Developments in the Court of Second Instance:
The case was heard in an open court session in January 2011 and was scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
With a decision No. 2761 as of February 23, 2011 a panel of the SAC revoked the decision of the First Instance. The Justices found that the three-member panel wrongly held that access may be refused if the requestor pointed a specific document and did not simply described the information. The law defines “public information” as any information relating to the public life and which enables the citizens to form their own opinion on the activities of the obliged authorities. The information sought falls under this definition. Furthermore, the APIA exhaustively enumerates the exemptions of the right of access and the one the refusal was grounded in is not on the list.