Information about the allocation of money for official publications in local media
Association Non-Governmental Organizations Center Razgrad vs. the Mayor of the Municipality of Razgrad
First Instance Court – administrative case No. 189/2007 Administrative Court - Razgrad
Second Instance Court – administrative case No. 1660/2008 of the Supreme Administrative Court, Third Divisions
Request:
With a request as of August 27, 2007, Georgi Milkov, a Chairperson of the Association Non-Governmental Organizations Center Razgrad, submitted a written request for access to public information to the Mayor of the Municipality of Ragzrad under the procedure stipulated by the Access to Public Information Act. With the request, he demanded access to information about the allocation of money by the municipality to local media in Razgrad for the publication of decisions, orders, announcements, invitations, protocols, etc. for the period January-July 2007, as well as information about the money allocated to the local TV KIS 13.
Refusal:
With a Decision as of September 21, 2007, the Mayor of the municipality refused to provide the requested information since it was related to the interests of third parties (the local media) which had explicitly dissent the disclosure – a ground for refusal under Art. 37, Para. 1, Item 2 in relation to Art.31, Para. 4 of the APIA.
Complaint:
The refusal of the Mayor was challenged before the Administrative Court – Razgrad.
Developments in the Court of First Instance:
Local media which had received money for the publication of materials from the municipality were constituted as parties in the case. The last court session was held in November 2007 and the case was scheduled for judgment.
Court Decision:
With a Decision No. 84 as of December 13, 2007, the Administrative Court – Razgrad dismissed the complaint of the association. In its judgment, the court assumed that the requested information was related to the commercial activities of third parties (publishers of printed media, respectively owners of TV programs) and indeed affected their lawful interests. The court did not share the position of the complainant that the those third parties were recipients of money from the municipal budget and as such they were themselves obliged to provide information under the provision of Art. 3, Para. 2, Item 2 of the APIA. According to the court, payments in business transactions in which the two contracting parties are equal did not mean funding from the state budget.
Court Appeal:
The decision of the Administrative Court – Razgrad was appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). Before the scheduling of the proceedings in the SAC, AIP undertook the legal help in the case.
Developments in the Court of Second Instance:
The case was heard in an open court session in September 2008. Written notes were prepared and presented on behalf of the association-complainant. It was stated that the case concerned budget expenses made for the publication of documents of the municipality. This was public information which did not relate to the interests of the companies which had performed the publication. No information was requested about the way the respective media utilized the allocated money. It was wrongly assumed in the appealed court decision that the companies had not received funding from the municipal budget. They had received precisely such funding and for an activity stipulated by the law – publication of decisions and other documents of the public authorities. It was also noted that the municipal budget was public pursuant to Art. 5 of the Municipal Budgets Act. If the whole is public, then its parts were public as well, i.e. all particular expenses made from the budget.
Court Decision:
With a Decision No. 10962 as of October 22, 2008, a panel of the SAC, Third Division, repealed the decision of the Administrative Court – Razgrad, and ruled instead the repeal of the refusal of the Mayor and turned the request back to the latter for execution of court instructions with regard to the implementation of the law. In their judgment, the justices found that the information about the allocation of money by the municipality to the local media for the publication of decisions, orders, announcements, invitations, protocols and other official acts of the municipality was public information under the stipulations of the APIA and should be provided at a request. Access to the information should not be refused on the ground of the protection of third party interests and the lack of their consent since in those cases, media, regardless of acting as companies performing free economic activities, performed activities of promulgation and dissemination of decisions of the municipality financed by the municipal budget. That was why media were not third parties as meant by the provision of Art. 31, Para. 2 of the APIA, but obliged bodies as stipulated by the provision of Art. 3, Para. 2, Item 2 of the APIA.
The court decision is final.
|