Information newsletter
Issue 5(17), May 2005

Request Experience: Officials at the Regional Court in Vratsa Do Not Know APIA
Maria Moleshka, AIP coordinator, Vratsa

The Beginning

The nongovernmental organization “InfoEcoClub”—Vratsa informed the Prosecutor’s Office at the town about violations in relation to the construction of a “Lukoil” gas station. After two years of investigation, the Deputy Prosecutor Mr. Lozanov suspended investigation case No 397/03 at Regional Prosecutor’s Office—Vratsa (RPOV) with Decision as of 17 December 2003.

Assisted by Alexander Kashumov, a lawyer from Access to Information Programme, the NGO appealed the RPOV's Decision before the Regional Court at Vratsa. In close chambers, the court delivered a Ruling No 28/03, which ended the proceedings on the penal case No. 623/03. The environmental organization demanded a copy of the court ruling. Initially, a court official turned to the Prosecutor Lozanov, who orally refused to provide the document on the grounds that it had been issued by the Regional Court at Vratsa.

The Development

On May 17, 2005, “InfoEcoClub” filed an application under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), demanding a copy of Ruling No. 28 from the administration of the Regional Court at Vratsa. The official from the administrative department was surprised with text in the request and turned to her colleague with the words: “Have you seen such a thing before?” The representative of the NGO, who was filing the application, was asked to wait while the official was consulting the chairman of the Regional Court. At the end, the official accepted the application, assuring that a reply would be given by the Archive Department. No login number was put on the APIA application and the official promised that information would be provided in 2-3 days. At the NGO representative’s attempt to remind of the Access to Public Information Act and that the court was the last institution to breach it, the official made fun of that saying that someday they would probably respect the rules.

The official from the Archive Department tried to redirect the requester to the Prosecutor’s Office and when the requester argued that the Ruling was issued by the Regional Court, the official invited the NGO representative to come in two-three days, when the document would be drawn up…

After three days, the requester was asked to come in two-three days since "the Chairman was busy.” The official suggested that instead of going to the court, the requester should call on the phone...

The End

Finally, the document was drawn up on 14 April 2005, almost a month after the submission of the FOI request, which is not within the prescribed time limits. A signature was put on the FOI request , in order to verify that the information was provided under APIA.