Court appeals

Home

 

 

Information about the type and number of stamps used within the Sofia Regional Prosecutor's Office

Ivan Petrov vs. the Sofia Regional Prosecutor's Office

First Instance Court – administrative case No.3317/2008, Administrative Court – Sofia City, 2nd Division, 26th Panel

Request:
In the beginning of 2008, the citizen Ivan Petrov who regularly submits signals to the Prosecutor's Office was impressed by the number and variety of stamps used by the Sofia Regional Prosecutor's Office (SRPO). That was why on April 14, 2008, the citizen submitted a request for access to information to the SRPO demanding the following information:

  • What was the number of round type of stamps used by the SRPO and how many of them were currently in use?
  • How many of the stamps described above were in different type of font?
  • When was the last time when the SRPO ordered a round type of stamp?
  • What were the reasons for ordering stamps in different fonts?

Refusal:
With a Decision as of April 18, 2008, the Prosecutor Al. Nalbantov, refused to provide access to the requested information on the ground that the information had been classified pursuant to Appendix No. 1, II, Item 12 to Art. 25 of the Protection of Classified Information Act (PCIA) and constituted state secret.

Complaint:
With the assistance of AIP, the refusal was appealed before the Administrative Court – Sofia City. The complaint stated that indeed pursuant to the Appendix No. 1, II, Item 12 to Art. 25 of the PCIA which contained a List of the categories of information subject to classification as a state secret – the information related to the making and holding of stamps with the state coat of arms, as well as the stamps of the state authorities, shall be classified as a state secret. It was apparent from the request itself, however, that in the current case the information requested did not fall in the quoted category of Attachment No. 1 as the requested information regarded statistical data about already made stamps of a body of state authority. The provision of such kind of information would in no way have harmed the interests protected under Art. 25 of the PCIA. Besides, it was not clear what kind of harm may the provision of answers to the questions set forth in the request impose.

Developments in the Court of First Instance:
The case was heard in an open court session in October 2008 and scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
With a Decision No. 815 as of October 2008, the ACSC repealed the refusal of the regional prosecutor and turned the request back to the latter for reconsideration. In the judgment, the court ruled that the administrative body had not cleared out if the provision of access to information would have harmed the interests of the Republic of Bulgaria related to the national security, defense, foreign policy and the protection of the constitutionally established order, and if yes, in what way the access would have harmed the interests of the state. The court decision also stated that the refusal of the Prosecutor's Office only stated the belonging to a category of information from the List of the categories of information subject to classification as a state secret (Appendix No. 1 to Art. 25 of the Protection of Classified Information Act). The lack of justification on what criteria and on what grounds it had been assumed that the requested information constituted state secret impeded the court to exercise efficient control on the lawfulness of the refusal for its provision.

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: 05.06.2009 • © 1999 Copyright by Interia & AIP