Information newsletter
Issue 4(16), April 2005

News, news, news
Prepared by Diana Bancheva, AIP

With the support of AIP, Minister Velchev was sued again for the contract with “Crown Agents”
On 28 April 2005, a Five-member Panel of the Supreme Administrative Court reversed the decision of the Three-member Panel of the same court, which in November 2004 had dismissed the complaint of Kiril Terziisky from AIP against the refusal of Minister of Finance Milen Velchev to provide a copy of the contract with the British company “Crown Agents.” According to the magistrates, the judgment of the Three-member Panel was issued in violation with the substantive law and the rules for court procedures. First, the Five-member Panel pointed out that the Three-member Panel had not decided on the lawfulness of the security mark on the contract, which meant that the assumption that the contract contained classified information was ungrounded. Second, the Three-member Panel had reviewed the contract at a chamber session under Art. 41, par. 3 of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA) after the closure of the pleadings, and by this action had violated the right of the claimant to defend since the latter could not have get acquainted with the points of facts that had been established. The case was referred back for judgment to another Three-member Panel.

Prosecutor supports the position of information seekers in court
The Prosecutor backed the defenders of the right of information at the Five-panel session of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) at the April 14 hearing for the case of AIP and two MPs against the refusal of The Minister of State Administration to provide the contract with Microsoft for the procurement of 30,000 software packages for the administration. According to the claimant, the selection process for an executor of the public procurement had been harmed since no competition was carried out. Minister Kalchev, however, states that the procurement is for Microsoft products and that is why no other offers had been considered. Minister Kalchev’s lawyers did not come to the court session.

Amendments of the Personal Data Protection Act restrict access to information
On 7 April, the Council of Ministers adopted draft amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act. The amendments stipulate that personal data related to crimes, administrative malpractices, judgments on penal proceedings, and security measures should be processed under the control of the competent bodies.

The amendments, furthermore, stipulate the repeal of the provision for access to personal data contained in public registers. The access will be allowed only under the condition of “fulfilment of assignment of public interest.” Employers are given the authority to collect sensitive personal data. The Personal Data Protection Committee has not been informed about the amendments and did not take part in their discussion. The amendments should be presented to the public for debate in order for the law to stay balanced, Alexander Kashumov from AIP commented. He added that if the amendments were approved, this would establish a contradiction to the Access to Public Information Act.

Access to Public Information Act allows access to the construction contract of “Trakia” highway
The file of the concession contract of “Trakia” highway is public information under the Access to Public Information Act, lawyer Alexander Kashumov from AIP stated. The Minister of Regional Development and Public Works is obliged under the law to send the file of the concession contract, which contains all documents related to the project, to the Public Register of the Council of Ministers. According to operative legislation, concession contracts are public and access could not be restricted due to commercial secret. Access to the documents would show whether the tenure procedure has been observed, whether Eurostat statement has been obtained, and whether the European Investment Bank has given its approval for signing the contract.

State Security Archives are not State Secret
Access to the Archive has become a problem since the repeal of the Archive Law in 2002, lawyer Alexander Kashumov from AIP commented. His statement is a result of the announcement made by the Interior Minister Petkanov that legislation obstructs declassification of the Archive of the former Secret Services. The minister quotes incorrectly the practices of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), which in at least three of its judgments has stated that the State Security Archive is not a state secret, the jurist from AIP points out. In 2004, SAC obliged the minister to provide access to the Archives to the journalist Hristo Hristov from “Dnevnik” newspaper.

Access to Information Seminar in Latin America
On 27 April, the head of the legal team of AIP, Alexander Kashumov, took part in a workshop in Buenos Aires on the subject: “International Experiences and Successful Tools for the Effective Exercise of the Right to Access Information.” On 2 May in Chile, lawyer Kashumov participated in a workshop on “Experiences in the Implementation of Access to Information Norms: Cooperative Strategies and Monitoring Activities by Civil Society Organizations.” Both meeting were organized by the Association for Civil Rights in Argentina, Center for the Implementation of Public Policies Promoting Equity and Growth, British embassy in Buenos Aires, and Open Society Justice Initiative.

Information About the Assassination Attempt Against Pope John Paul II on the Internet
Information from Stasi and State Security Archives concerning the attempt against Pope John Paul II in 1981 will be published on the Internet. This was announced by the President of the Information Security State Commission (ISSC), Ms. Tsveta Markova. According to the statement, the file that contains the correspondence between the two secret services should be available for citizens in the ISSC reception room.

MP nominees checked for Security Services connections
The Information Security State Commission will give the names of former Security Services agents to the leaders of the parties and coalitions which compete in the general parliamentary elections in June. Party leaders will decide by themselves whether people with dark past would stay in the election lists.