Access to financial reports and bank deposits of the National Health Insurance Fund (a public-law entity)

The NHIF director refused to provide access to the requested information with a written refusal, because most documents fell into the scope of the administrative secret exemption, while a copy of the decision of the NHIF board to determine the list of banks had to be requested from the board, because the Director could not disclose it without their consent.

The refusal of the NHIF director was appealed before the Sofia City Court and the court proceedings started under administrative case № 2295/2001. With a decision from Aug. 02, 2002 the court reversed the refusal as contrary to the law and obliged the NHIF director to disclose the requested information. The court stated that public law entities, obliged under Art. 3 para. 2 of APIA (like the NHIF) cannot use the exemption of Art. 13, para. 2, 3 of APIA (documents related to ongoing negotiations), which relates only to the work of the central bodies and local government institutions. The court also adopted the view that no concent of the board was necessary for the disclosure of the decision determining the banks which would diapose of the funds of NHIF, because under Art. 19 para. 1 and 2 from the MHIA the NHIF director is authorized to organize and manage the work of the Fund.

The decision of the SCC was appealed by the respondent before the Supreme Administrative Court, which resulted in court case № 2471/2003 of SAC. With a decision from May 29, 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court turned down the appeal of NHIF confirming and enforcing the decision of the SCC. The decision of the SAC is extremely important, because it states explicitly that public law entities can refuse information only when it constitutes commercial secret or is likely to cause unfair competition.