![]() |
![]() |
|
For the Earth Association vs. Ministry of Environment and Water Facts: On 18 July 2000, Ms Kireva received a refusal in writing to grant access to information (signed by Deputy Minister N. Dimov) on grounds of Art. 37, para 1, subpara 1 of APIA, i.e. the information was a state or another secret protected by law and no meaning on its own. The explanation read that "the additional membership of SEEB is formed by representatives of non-governmental environmentalist organisations selected on your part (environmentalist organisations and movements)". The Deputy Minister interpreted it as "an opportunity for obtaining detailed information about the discussions held". Ms Kireva approached the AIP lawyers for legal assistance in that case.
Having analysed the facts and assessed the existing opportunities, they
prepared the documentation and the refusal was appealed before SAC within
the prescribed time limits. On 12 November 2001, attorney-at-law Kashamov as the representative of Polina Kireva served a private appeal against the Ruling of SAC of 17 September 2001 (on grounds of Art. 20, para 3 in conjunction with para 1, subpara 5 of the SAC Act and Art. 213bis of the Civil Procedure Code) to a five-member panel of SAC. Curious: Arguments of the Parties: The Prosecutor expressed the opinion that the information was within the scope of Art. 13 of APIA. The Ruling of SAC of 17 September 2001 stated that the implied refusal to grant access to public information was not subject to appeal. As far as implied refusals are concerned, there is already a ruling of a five-member panel of SAC on a case, in which the defence was represented by Alexander Kashamov, AIP lawyer (Case 7, CILA v.s MLSP), i.e. Ruling No. 8645 of 16 November 2001. The ruling gives a positive answer as to the issue whether an implied refusal to grant access to public information can exist. Conclusions: The interpretation given in the attacked Ruling that implied refusals
under APIA are not subject to appeal (contravening Art. 46, para 1 of
the Legal Instruments Act, Art. 6, para 1, subpara 4 and Art. 7, para
1 of APIA, and Art. 120, para 2 of the Constitution) renders senseless
the whole APIA and the rights provided for therein. If that interpretation
is accepted, no person responsible for granting access to information
will ever fulfil his or her obligations and will prevent the access to
public information or possible legal remedies by simple inaction. Thus
an absurd situation is created, i.e. explicit refusals are subject to
judicial review, whereas refusals that totally ignore the obligations
prescribed by law remain beyond any judicial review.
HOME | ABOUT US | APIA | LEGISLATIVE BASE | LEGAL HELP | TRAININGS | PUBLICATIONS | FAQ | LINKS | SEARCH | MAP English Version Last Update: 25.01.2002 © 1999 Copyright by Interia & AIP |