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

Zornitsa Stratieva vs. the National Construction Control Directorate

First Instance Court – administrative case No. 2261/2010, ACSC, Second division, 25th panel

Request:
On January 25, 2010, Zornitsa Stratieva filed a request to the National Construction Control Directorate (NCCD). She sought information on the construction of a chair lift in the Rila Mountain, precisely three ordinances of the Deputy Chief related to the activity of the State Acceptance Committee and the Protocol establishing the suitability for use of the lift.

Refusal:
With a decision as of February 2010, the Chief Secretary of the NCCD refused access to the information on the ground that the information relates to the preparatory work of an act and has no significance in itself, therefore falls under the exemption of Art. 13, Para. 2 of the APIA.

Complaint:
The refusal was challenged before the ACSC. The complainant stated that the information sought relates to the environment, consequently its disclosure should have been assessed under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), which is special law with regard to the APIA. The information is environmental because the construction and the exploitation of the chair lift will affect the environment within the meaning of Art. 19, item 2 of the EPA which defines “information about the environment.” The refusal grounded on the exemption of preparatory documents is unlawful because the EPA does not provide for such an exemption. When environmental information is sought the procedure for granting or refusing access to it is set forth by the EPA. To this procedure apply only the exemptions under Art. 20, Para. 1 of the EPA, and the preparatory documents exemption is not among them, therefore it was inapplicable to this case.

Developments in the Court of First Instance:
The case was heard in an open court session in May 2010 and was scheduled for judgment.

Court decision:
With a decision as of July 19, 2010, a panel of the ACSC repealed the refusal and compelled the Chief Secretary of the NCCD to grant access to the information. The court held that acts of public authorities are official information within the meaning of Art. 10 of the APIA and access to it cannot be restricted, this is especially so because there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure.

With a decision as of August 23, 2010, the Chief Secretary granted full access to the information sought.