Information newsletter
Issue 1(13), January 2005

Case of the Month: Is the information of budget financed companies public?
by Fani Davidova, AIP

The case:
Is information related to companies that have won state financed projects public? The question arose when the senior expert from the PR office of the Regional Employment Services in Varna refused to give the names of the regional companies that had won projects under the national program “From Dole to Employment.” The official provided the number of the companies, but refused to disclose the names since these were “confidential information.”

Comment:
There is no doubt that the requested information is public and should be provided. The national program “From Dole to Employment” is an initiative of the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy. Its purpose is to guarantee employment to individuals who receive government relief.

The intention is that the state gives money to potential employers for salaries and bonuses for the engagement of unemployed workers. Private and state companies, as well as non-profit organizations, are eligible for inclusion in the program as employers.

Apparently, the contentious program is:
First, subsidized by the budget, and second, implemented by a competent state authority, which is undoubtedly obliged to provide information under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA). The obligation for publicity encompasses the sub-contractors of the program as well. These are the employers, who have assimilated government subsidies for the employment of unemployed.

Thus, the denial of the official from the Regional Employment Services in Varna to provide the names of the winner employers is bizarre. The companies themselves would hardly like to remain anonymous. It seems that behind the motive for denial stands a miscomprehension of the provision of article 37, par. 2 of the APIA. It enacts that the protection of third party interests and the lack of their consent for information disclosure could give grounds for information denial. The above quoted provision, however, is not applicable to the current case since the “third party” under question has received money from the state budget. Thus, the company becomes obliged under the APIA and information should be provided immediately, without requirement for its consent. What interests could be affected by the publication of the names of the winner companies in a state announced project competition?

A similar question concerns the publicity of the information related to the implementation of the widely discussed demonstration projects by private bodies. Often, the names of the project winners, as well as the amount of the money granted for the implementation of the project, are denied on the grounds of contractor's interests protection.

These contractors, however, are subsidized by the state budget surpluses and are thus subject to the APIA.

By refusing information of the above-mentioned type, the administration hardly protects anyone’s interests. On the contrary, such a behavior could only generate doubts about the integrity of the process of competition and the way winners were selected.