Number, purpose, and duration of the official trips, as well as the expenses incurred by the Mayor of Razgrad

The Non-Governmental Organizations Center Razgrad vs. the Municipality of Razgrad (Mayor’s Per Diems)

First Instance – administrative case No. 1/2006, Regional Court of Razgrad
Second Instance – administrative case No. 5319/2006, Supreme Administrative court, Fifth Division

Request:
With a written request for access to information, the chairman of the Non-Governmental Organizations Center in the Town of Razgrad demanded from the mayor of the Municipality of Razgrad access to the following information:
- number, purpose, and duration of the official trips, as well as the expenses incurred in the country and abroad by Mr. Venelin Uzunov, Mayor of the Municipality of Razgrad since 1991 until the moment of the request submission.

Refusal:
No response was received within the legally prescribed period of 14 days.

Complaint:
The silent refusal of the mayor of the Municipality of Razgrad was challenged before the Regional Court of Razgrad (RCR).

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

Court Decision:
With decision No. 19 of March 10, 2006, a panel of the RCR dismissed the association’s complaint, arguing that the complainant had requested access to information that was not public under the definition of Art. 2, Para. 1 of the APIA and constituted personal data. The court panel concluded that most of the data were not available due to the expiration of the legally prescribed period for storing such kind of data under the Accounting Act.

Court Appeal:
The decision of the RCR was appealed before the SAC. The appeal stated that information about the number, purpose, and the duration of the official trips, as well as the expenses incurred, by the mayor of the municipality of Razgrad was requested. Such data could not be defined as personal data under Art. 2 of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), since they did not pertain to a physical person but rather to the fulfillment of official functions by the mayor of a municipality. The content of the information requested, which regarded mainly the activities of an executive body within the municipality, is classified as official public information under Art. 11 of the APIA. The complainant also argued that the legislation (State Archive Fund Act) introduced clear rules for document management within state institutions and that the process of storage, archiving, and destruction of documents is not left to the free will and subjective judgment of public officials. For these reasons, the unfounded statement that the documents that contained the information requested were not kept in the municipality was not sufficient to motivate a refusal for access to public information.

Developments in the Court of Second Instance:
The case was heard in an open session and scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
With decision No. 9097 of September 21, 2006, a panel of the SAC repealed the decision of the RCR and returned the case to the mayor with instructions to grant access to the requested information in accordance with the documents available in the municipality. In their judgment, the justices stated that the regional court had wrongly and in violation to the law assumed that the complainant sought access to information that was not public under Art. 2, Para. 1 of the APIA. The data requested were not personal pursuant to Art. 2, Para. 1 of the PDPA since they did not pertain to the physical person Venelin Uzunov and their disclosure would not identify him as such. The particular case pertained to the fulfillment of official duties by Uzunov as mayor of the Municipality of Razgrad. Information about that the fulfillment of such duties would give citizens the opportunity to form their own opinion about the activities of the executive body within the municipality, which is an obliged body under the law. For these reasons, the court panel declared that the requested information should be classified as official public information under Art. 11 of the APIA. It was also stated that no proof was presented as which part of the requested accounting documentation for the last 15 years was available and what part had been destroyed pursuant to the terms prescribed by Art. 42 of the Accounting Act. Therefore, such grounds for the formulation of the appealed refusal could not substantiate its lawfulness.