Information about the members of the municipal council serving terms from 2003-2007
The Non-Governmental Organizations Center Razgrad vs. the Municipality of Razgrad
First Instance – administrative case No. 2/2005, Regional Court of Razgrad
Second Instance – administrative case No. 4365/2006, Supreme Administrative Court, Fifth Division
Request:
On October 12, 2004, Georgi Milkov, chairman of the Non-Governmental Organizations Center in the Town of Ragzrad, submitted a request to the mayor of the Municipality of Razgrad demanding the following information:
- an updated list, as of April 1, 2004, of the members of the municipal council serving terms from 2003-2007, including their names, addresses, educational backgrounds, work places and work telephone numbers.
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. 21 of March 9, 2006, a panel of the RCR dismissed the complaint, stating that the requested information did not constitute public information under the APIA since the list would not help the requestor to form his own opinion about the activities of the members of the municipal council of the town of Razgrad. Thus, the court panel reached the conclusion that the requested information constituted personal data and that for their disclosure the consent of the particular persons had to be sought under the procedure provided by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).
Court Appeal:
The decision of the RCR was appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The appeal stated that the information requested (an updated list, as of April 1, 2004, of the members of the municipal council serving terms from 2003-2007, including their names, addresses, educational backgrounds, work places and work telephone numbers) could not be defined as personal data under the provision of Art. 2 of the PDPA, since these data did not pertain to any physical person but rather to the fulfillment of official duties by the members of the municipal council. Therefore, the information requested concerned the activities of a local governmental body only and was public in nature, hence access to it should not be restricted.
Developments in the Court of Second Instance:
The case was heard in an open court session and scheduled for judgment.
Court Decision:
With decision No. 9098 of September 21, 2006, a panel of the SAC upheld the decision of the RCR. In their judgment, the justices stated that the regional court had rightly and lawfully assumed that the complainant did not request information that was public under the provision of Art. 2, Para. 1 of the APIA. Undoubtedly, there was no obstacle to the requestor’s receiving a list of the names of the members of the local parliament, which was public and which was provided by the chairman of the Municipal Council. There was also no legal restriction on the disclosure of statistical data about the educational backgrounds and professions exercised by the members of the municipal council, as long as such data did not associate data with particular names. Thus, the purpose of the law, i.e. namely to allow citizens to forming their own opinions about the activities of the obliged body of local government, could be fulfilled under such circumstances. The data requested by the Association about each member of municipal council (including educational background, address, work place, and work telephone) would not help in the forming of such an opinion. In practice, it would lead to the identification of the physical persons – members of the municipal council – by the disclosure of personal data about them. The PDPA provided for a special procedure for the seeking, storage, and dissemination of personal data. Free access to such data was explicitly excluded from the provision of Art. 2, Para. 3 of the APIA. As far as the interests of these persons were affected, if they had not given written consent for the disclosure of the information (under the condition that it was public), that constituted a ground for a refusal in compliance with Art. 37, Para. 1, Item 3 of the APIA.
|