Information newsletter
Issue 01(25), January 2006

From the Courtroom: Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court Ruled in Favour of Freedom of Information

On January 3, 2006, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in Bulgaria delivered a decision that is of extreme importance for the implementation of the Access to Public Information Act in the country. SAC reversed the decision of the Sofia City Court (SCC) and returned the case for reconsideration of the previous decision to the lower instance court with regards to refusal of access to the security services' report on the so called Iraqgate case.

In February 2004, Zoya Dimitrova, a journalist from Monitor newspaper, filed an information request to the President's Administration. Ms. Dimitrova requested access to a report by the National Security Services and the National Investigation Services prepared by demand of the President. The report contained data about Bulgarian citizens and companies who were involved in oil trade with Iraqi companies or their representatives during the Saddam regime.

Within the legally prescribed time-frame, the Head of President's Administration delivered an explicit refusal to the information request. The only grounds that the refusal stated were that the information had been classified.

The refusal was challenged before the Sofia City Court (SCC). Ms. Zoya Dimitrova was represented by Alexander Kashumov, a lawyer from Access to Information Programme. The SCC reversed the refusal as unlawful but its decision was appealed by the President's Administration before the SAC.

Though the SAC referred the case back to the lower instance court, several important issues were settled by the decision of the supreme court. These are:

First, access to information refusals of the Head of President's Administration are liable to appeal.

Second, simply stating that the requested information is state or other legally protected secret, does not exclude the refusal from appeal liability.

Third, the court should request and inspect the report of the special services in order to judge on the lawfulness decision to classify it as a state secret.

Fourth, the fact that the information relates to the work of the security services does not automatically classify it as secret. What was requested was not an operational report on the work of the services, but a report presenting the results from the operational work.

Fifth, even if there is a possibility of harm from disclosure, it could be eliminated by granting partial access to the requested information.

A new hearing of the case by the Sofia City Court is pending.