Amount of money paid by a Municipality of Razgrad for an advertisement of Duma newspaper
Non-Governmental Organizations Center Razgrad vs. the Municipality of Razgrad (Advertisement in Duma newspaper)
First Instance – administrative case No. 11/2005, Regional Court of Razgrad
Second Instance – administrative case No. 7222/2005, Supreme Administrative Court, Fifth Division
Request:
In the end of 2004, the chairman of the Non-Governmental Organizations Center Razgrad in the Town of Razgrad submitted an information request to the mayor of the town demanding access to information about the amount of money paid by the Municipality in the town of Razgrad for an advertisement in the December 9, 2004, edition of Duma newspaper.
Refusal:
A written decision for refusal was issued on the grounds of protection of a third party's interests and the lack of its consent for the provision of information. A letter of dissent from the Editor-in-Chief of Duma newspaper was attached to the refusal. It claimed that the information was the editor's and the company's secret.
Complaint:
The refusal was challenged before the Regional Court of Razgrad.
Developments in the Court of First Instance:
The case was heard in a single session and was scheduled for judgment.
Court Decision:
The Regional Court of Razgrad dismissed the complaint with Decision No. 56 as of April 27, 2005. The justices took the position that the requested information did not constitute public information under the provisions of the APIA, but concerned business relations between the Municipality of Razgrad and the newspaper. In their judgment, the justices stated that the administrative body had correctly assessed that the information affected a third party's interests and had requested their consent for the provision of the information. As a result of the dissent of the third party, the body had correctly refused access to the requested information.
Court Appeal:
The decision was appealed before the SAC with the argument that the Regional Court of Razgrad had wrongly judged that the requested information was not public. The definition of public information was given by Art. 10 and 11 of the APIA; furthermore, the SAC itself had ruled in a number of decisions that information contained in contracts between the state or a municipality and a private company was public. The complaint argued that the requested information did not constitute a commercial secret pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Competition Act. Thus, the dissent expressed by the third party was irrelevant. It also stated that the spending of public money by public bodies should be transparent in a democratic society, it being of no importance whether it was spent for reconstruction, construction, official trips, or advertisement in the press.
Developments in the Court of Second Instance:
At the court session, the lawyer of the complainant presented the advertisement price offer of Duma newspaper as proof that the information requested about a particular payment was not a secret of any kind when the pricing was public—it was found on the website of the newspaper. Consequently, the information should be provided.
Court Decision:
With decision No. 1299 of February 2006, a panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Regional Court of Razgrad. In their judgment, the justices assumed that the requested information was public – more precisely, it was official public information pursuant to Art. 11 of the APIA. However, the refusal had been lawful since it was obvious from the applied evidence that the third party – the subcontractor – had expressed its explicit dissent for the provision of the requested information about the amount of money paid for the advertisement.
It remains unclear what the third party’s interest (i.e. that of Duma newspaper) is which is being protected by the refusal. Even the court panel of the SAC emphasized that the complainant, who had the advertisement price offer (which is publicly accessible) for the respective print media and was acquainted with the advertisement published in Duma newspaper, could have calculated the amount of money paid by the advertiser by a simple arithmetic operation, which would have satisfied the interest of the complainant.
|