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

National Committee for Improvement of Water Supply in Bulgaria vs. Sofia Municipality

First Instance Court – administrative case No. 3907/2010, ACSC, First division, 5th panel

Request:
In the end of 2008, Gancho Hitrov, chairperson of the National Committee for Improvement of Water Supply in Bulgaria, filed a request of access to information for a copy of the legal analysis of the performance of the concession contract between the Sofia Municipality and Sofia Water JSC for the period 2000-2007, drafted by a law firm in late 2008 on the Municipality request.

With a decision as of February 2, 2009, the Mayor of Sofia Municipality refused access because the legal analysis was drafted by a law firm and it was covered by the attorney-client privilege. The refusal was repealed by two court instances (administrative case No. 1884/2009, ACSC, Second Division,
33 panel, Court of Second Instance - administrative case No. 10514/2009, SAC, Fifth Division).

Refusal:
Instead of granting access in compliance of the court decision, the Sofia Municipality refused to provide the documents on the grounds that the information was neither public nor official information.

Complaint:
The refusal was challenged before the ACSC. The complaint stated that the refusal was in flagrant violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to information and a huge disrespect with regard to the authority of the courts. The administrative authorities are bound by the acts of the court and it is absolutely unacceptable to imagine and set different grounds for refusal than the ones established by law.

Developments in the Court of First Instance:
The case was heard in an open court session on December 2, 2010 and scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
With a decision No. 4107 as of December 10, 2010, a panel of the ACSC repealed the refusal and compelled the Sofia Municipality to grant access. The Court pointed out that, undoubtedly, the information was public in so far as it gives the opportunity to the citizen to form an opinion on the activity of the municipality related to the performance of the concession agreement. The Court further noted that it was unacceptable that the authority tried to find other arguments to refuse access after the final court decision, which repealed the first refusal grounding on attorney-client privilege.