Court appeals

Home

 

 

Information about the amount of money allocated for the landscaping of the Bankia District

The Bankia Civil Association vs. the Mayor of the Bankia District Administration - Municipality of Sofia

First Instance–administrative case No. 3348/2005, Sofia City Court, Administrative Division, Panel ²²²-A

Request:
In August 2005, the Chairperson of the Bankia Civil Association submitted a request for access to information to the mayor of the Bankia District Administration - Municipality of Sofia. He demanded access to public information and copies of documents that were specified in five points:
- A copy of the contract between the Bankia District Administration and BKS-Ivan Ivanov Ltd about "Landscaping in the Territory of the Bankia District" and the attachments defining the prices of different types of activities, the amount of additional costs, hourly payment rates and profits;
- An excerpt from accounting records about the amount of money allocated for the landscaping of the Bankia District for the period 2004-2005;
- Copies of reports on landscaping activities completed by BKS-Ivan Ivanov Ltd in 2004 and 2005;
- Invoices for completed landscaping activities for 2004 and 2005; and
- An excerpt from accounting records about costs incurred for the landscaping of the Bankia District in 2004 and 2005.

Refusal:
With a letter to the requestor, the administrative body expressed doubts about the status of the civil association as to who its founders and its representatives were, what the purpose of its establishment was, and whether all members were acquainted with the request. It was argued that the provision of the information requested would violate the rights of the subcontractors due to disclosure of commercial information and would create an opportunity for the unlawful processing of the information, which was protected against by Art. 27, Para. 2, Item 3 of the APIA. Consequently, Art. 27, Para. 2 of the APIA was applicable to the case: access should be granted in a form decided by the respective agency.

Complaint:
The refusal was challenged before the Sofia City Court (SCC). Arguments about the violation of the law by the mayor were set forth. He requested that the complainant prove the legal status of the association. The APIA does not require the requestor to present a status identification document when submitting a request for access to information. According to the constitutional norm on which the APIA was based, EVERYBODY has the right of access to information. It was also argued that the mayor had not respected the provision of Art. 31 of the APIA, since he had assumed that the information requested affected a third party's interest (the contractors) yet he had not sought their consent for the disclosure. At the same time, the possibility introduced by Art. 31, para. 4 of the APIA, which concerns provision of information in a manner that would not affect the rights of a third party, had not been taken into account.

Developments in the Court of First Instance:
The case was heard in a single court session and scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
With a decision on May 2, 2006, the SCC repealed the refusal of the mayor of the Bankia District Administration to provide access to public information and returned the request back to the mayor for reconsideration of his decision in compliance with the instructions given by the court. In their judgment, the justices stated that it was not made clear why the administrative body had assumed that the disclosure of the documents would create an opportunity for the unlawful processing of the information. If the body deemed that the disclosure would have affected the rights of the subcontractors by disseminating commercial secrets, then the provision in Art. 31, Para. 1 of the APIA had to be enforced. In this case, the mayor of the Bankia District Administration was obliged, pursuant to Art. 31, Para. 2 of the APIA, to seek the consent of the third party to whom the information was related. No data evidenced that such actions had been undertaken, which proved the unlawfulness of the refusal.

The decision was not appealed and came into effect.


HOME | ABOUT US | APIA | LEGISLATIVE BASE | LEGAL HELP | TRAININGS | PUBLICATIONS | FAQ | LINKS | SEARCH | MAP
English Version • Last Update: 22.03.2007 • © 1999 Copyright by Interia & AIP