Here you can find information about the most significant cases supported by the Access to Information Programme (AIP) that received court rulings in favor of the claimants in 2025. The cases are presented in the form of a brief description of the submitted request, the received response, and the court’s decision. Copies of the court rulings are also attached.
More information about the cases supported by AIP in 2025 can be found in the News section.
1. Svetoslav Ivanov (Sofia) v. Mother's Home Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment in Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Laparoscopic Gynaecology EAD
In July 2024, Svetoslav Ivanov submitted a request to the Mother's Home Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment in Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Laparoscopic Gynaecology EAD ("Mother's Home") seeking information, set out in seven items, concerning the hospital's contracts for outsourced services. Specifically, he requested the following information:
1.Whether the hospital employs a person under an employment contract to provide legal services and, if so, the legal basis for that appointment.
2.Whether the hospital has concluded a contract for legal services with an external provider, the value of the contract, and the legal basis for its conclusion.
3.Whether any renovation or repair works had been carried out at the hospital between 1 January 2023 and 17 July 2024, and the total value of those works.
4.Whether the hospital had concluded any public relations (PR) services contracts during the period from 1 January 2023 to 17 July 2024, and the value of each contract as well as the aggregate value of all such contracts.
5.Whether, as of 17 July 2024, the hospital had any contracts with external service providers and, if so, the subject matter and value of each contract.
6.The number of pending court proceedings to which the hospital was a party as of 17 July 2024.
7.The number of final court judgments delivered between 1 June 2019 and 17 July 2024 ordering the hospital to pay monetary compensation to third parties.
By Decision No. RD-09-88 of 19 August 2024, the Executive Director of Mother's Home disclosed the information requested under items 1 and 3. Access to the information requested under items 2, 4 and 5 was refused on the ground that it contained personal data. The information requested under items 6 and 7 was refused on the ground that it was neither created nor maintained by the hospital.
In Judgment No. 1370 of 13 January 2025, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 30, in Administrative Case No. 8840/2024, Judge Maya Suknarova annulled the refusal concerning items 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the request and remitted the case to the Executive Director of Mother's Home for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.
With regard to the information requested under items 2, 4 and 5, the Court held that where the requested information concerns the interests of a third party, the procedure prescribed by the Access to Public Information Act (APIA) requires the authority to consult the third party whose interests may be affected. An explicit refusal by that third party may then constitute grounds for refusing access. In the present case, the administrative file contained no evidence that the third parties with whom the hospital had concluded service contracts had been consulted under the procedure established by the APIA. The failure to conduct such consultations, combined with reliance solely on the existence of personal data as the legal basis for refusal, rendered the decision unlawful because the statutory procedure had not been followed. Furthermore, the Court noted that access to the requested information could not be refused merely because it contained personal data, since any such data should instead be redacted before disclosure. The Court also observed that, contrary to the requirements of the APIA, the authority had failed to assess whether there was an overriding public interest within the meaning of § 1(6) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act.
With regard to the refusal to disclose the information requested under items 6 and 7, the Court found that providing this information would not require the creation of a qualitatively new document. The information already existed within the hospital, and although it was not generated in the course of its ordinary medical activities, it was collected and maintained by those responsible for providing the hospital's legal representation, regardless of whether they were external legal service providers or in-house legal staff employed under employment or civil service relationships. Accordingly, the hospital was required to provide the requested information in the form of a consolidated summary. The Court further held that the information requested under items 6 and 7 was capable of enabling the public to form an opinion about the operation of the hospital as a public-sector body.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 1370 of 13 January 2025,Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 30, Administrative Case No. 8840/2024, Judge Maya Suknarova.
2. Mirela Veselinova (Capital) v. the Commission for Counteracting Corruption
By a request dated 29 March 2024, journalist Mirela Veselinova sought access to the following information:
1.The amount of the basic and gross salaries of the Chairperson and each of the members of the Commission for Counteracting Corruption and the Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets (CCCFAA) prior to the entry into force of the legislative amendments that divided the Commission into two separate legal entities, together with the legal basis on which those salaries were determined.
2.The amount of the basic and gross salaries of the Chairperson and members of the Commission for the Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets (CFIAA) from 6 October onwards, together with the legal basis on which those salaries were paid.
3.The amount of the basic and gross salaries of the Chairperson and members of the Commission for Counteracting Corruption (CCC) from 6 October onwards, together with the legal basis on which those salaries were paid.
4.Whether remuneration for performing functions in the two commissions was duplicated.
In Judgment No. 13787 of 2 August 2024, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 32, in Administrative Case No. 4872/2024, Judge Krasimira Milachkova annulled the implied refusal and remitted the case to the Commission for Counteracting Corruption (CCC) for an express decision on the request. The Court held that an implied refusal to respond to a request for access to public information is unlawful. Under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), the only lawful course of action is for the public authority to issue an express decision within the statutory time limit under Article 28(1) of the APIA, either granting or refusing access to the requested information. The judgment is final.
Following the Court's ruling, the Chairperson of the Commission issued an express decision on 28 August 2024. Although the decision purported to provide the requested information, it effectively refused access.
In Judgment No. 5605 of 18 February 2025, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 23, in Administrative Case No. 9305/2024, Judge Antoaneta Argirova dismissed the appeal as inadmissible with respect to item 4 of the request, annulled the refusal concerning items 1–3, and remitted the case to the Chairperson of the Commission for Counteracting Corruption for a new decision on those items in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.
With regard to item 4, the Court held that the appeal was inadmissible because the contested decision had in fact answered the question by stating that the Chairperson and members performing functions within the CCC and the CFIAA received a single remuneration, and therefore there was no duplication of salaries.
As regards items 1 and 2, the Court found that the Commission had no legal basis for forwarding the request to the Commission for the Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Assets (CFIAA). At the time the request was submitted, and continuing thereafter, the functions of Chairperson of both the CCC and the CFIAA were performed by the Chairperson of the former CCCFAA, notwithstanding that the latter had already ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Court further held that the requested information concerning the gross remuneration received by the Chairperson and members of the former CCCFAA, and subsequently of the CCC and the CFIAA, constituted official public information within the meaning of the APIA. The Court expressly stated that the remuneration of persons holding public office cannot be concealed from the public. Transparency regarding such remuneration is an essential standard of accountability in the expenditure of public funds. Moreover, disclosure of this information enables the public to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of public authorities and strengthens their accountability.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the administrative authority was under a legal obligation to disclose the information requested in items 1–3 of the application.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 13787 of 2 August 2024, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 32, Administrative Case No. 4872/2024, Judge Krasimira Milachkova.
2.Judgment No. 5605 of 18 February 2025, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 23, Administrative Case No. 9305/2024, Judge Antoaneta Argirova.
3. Nikolay Nedelchev (Sofia) v. the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office
By a request dated 8 July 2024, Nikolay Nedelchev sought the following information from the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria:
1.A complete list, broken down by parliamentary committee, of all reports alleging publicly prosecutable offences that had been referred by temporary parliamentary committees to the prosecution authorities during the period from 1 January 2021 to 18 July 2024, including a description of each report and its outgoing reference number.
2.The corresponding prosecution file numbers (registered with the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office or other prosecution offices) assigned to the proceedings initiated as a result of those reports.
3.The prosecutorial decisions and other prosecutorial acts that had been sent to the National Assembly in connection with those reports.
By decision of 19 July 2024, the Secretary General of the National Assembly disclosed the information requested under item 1 and stated that the information requested under items 2 and 3 was not held by the National Assembly. Mr Nedelchev challenged the decision before the Sofia Administrative Court insofar as it concerned items 2 and 3.
In Judgment No. 23372 of 13 November 2024, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 48, in Administrative Case No. 7936/2024, Judge Kalina Petsova annulled the refusal, holding that where the National Assembly did not possess the requested information, it was required not to refuse access but to forward that part of the request to the authority holding the information.
Following the remittal of the case, the National Assembly forwarded the request, by letter issued at the end of November 2024, to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office (SCPO) for a decision on items 2 and 3.
By decision of 6 December 2024, the Deputy Prosecutor General refused access, arguing that the registration numbers of criminal investigation files and prosecution files did not constitute public information within the meaning of Article 2 of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), while prosecutorial acts were covered by the confidentiality of the criminal investigation and could be accessed only under the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
In Judgment No. 5138 of 14 February 2025, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 22, in Administrative Case No. 12841/2024, Judge Desislava Kornezova annulled the refusal and remitted the case to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office with instructions to provide the requested information within 14 days.
With regard to the numbers of criminal investigation files and prosecution files, the Court observed that the official website of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Bulgaria contains an online service ("Check a File") through which members of the public may track the status of a prosecution file by entering either the file number or the registration number of the complaint or report. The Court held that, since the prosecution authorities had themselves decided, in the interest of greater transparency and accountability, to make it possible for any citizen to follow the progress of a case using these reference numbers, there was no legal obstacle to disclosing them under the APIA. The applicant had requested only the registration numbers of prosecution files opened following reports referred by the National Assembly during the period from 1 January 2021 to 18 July 2024. Assigning and maintaining such registration numbers forms part of the administrative record-keeping activities of the prosecution authorities and does not constitute an investigative activity governed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court also found unlawful, and contrary to both the purpose and spirit of the law, the prosecution's conclusion that access to the prosecutorial decisions contained in the requested files was restricted under Article 198(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That provision prohibits the disclosure of investigation materials without the prosecutor's permission and expressly forbids the dissemination of information obtained through special surveillance measures outside the purposes of protecting national security or criminal proceedings. However, these restrictions apply only to investigation materials and do not extend to the formal procedural acts of the prosecuting authorities, including prosecutorial decisions. In particular, a decision terminating criminal proceedings under Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code constitutes a formal act of the prosecutor rather than part of the investigation materials and is therefore not subject to the disclosure restriction contained in Article 198(1).
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 23372 of 13 November 2024, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 48, Administrative Case No. 7936/2024, Judge Kalina Petsova.
2.Judgment No. 5138 of 14 February 2025, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 22, Administrative Case No. 12841/2024, Judge Desislava Kornezova.
4. Magdalena Slavova (Civic Initiative "Water for Omurtag") v. the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works
By a request dated 18 November 2024, Magdalena Slavova sought access from the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (MRDPW) to information concerning the Ministry's Regional Pre-Investment Study (RPIS) for the service area of Water Supply and Sewerage Ltd. (ViK), Targovishte, insofar as it concerned the municipalities of Omurtag and Antonovo. Specifically, she requested:
1.A copy of those parts of the Regional Pre-Investment Study, completed in 2023 for the service area of Water Supply and Sewerage Ltd. (ViK), Targovishte, that relate to all settlements within the Municipality of Omurtag.
2.A copy of those parts of the same Regional Pre-Investment Study that relate to all settlements within the Municipality of Antonovo.
By letter No. 94-00-125-[1] of 3 December 2024, the Director of the Legal Directorate of the Ministry refused access on the ground that the requested information constituted preparatory documents within the meaning of Article 13(2)(1) of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA).
In Judgment No. 293 of 19 March 2025, the Administrative Court – Targovishte, First Panel, in Administrative Case No. 683/2024, Judge Krasimira Todorova annulled the refusal and remitted the case to the Director of the Legal Directorate for a fresh decision in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.
The Court held that Article 13(2) of the APIA, which limits access to certain categories of official public information, was not applicable in the present case. Under Article 13(2)(1), access may be refused where the requested information is related to the internal preparation of administrative acts, has no independent significance, and consists of opinions, recommendations, consultations or advice prepared by or for the public authority. The purpose of this provision is to protect preparatory materials where the relevant information subsequently becomes available through the final administrative act adopted by the authority. In the present case, however, the information requested by the applicant could not be obtained from the final act based on the Regional Pre-Investment Study.
The Court further emphasised that the limitation contained in Article 13(2) is not absolute. Pursuant to Article 13(4) of the APIA, access to official public information may not be restricted where there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
The Court noted that the grounds for refusing access to public information are exhaustively set out in Article 37 of the APIA, which also provides exceptions requiring disclosure where an overriding public interest exists. Sections 1(5) and 1(6) of the Supplementary Provisions of the APIA establish a rebuttable presumption that, in certain circumstances, such an overriding public interest exists. The effect of this presumption is to reverse the burden of proof: it is not the applicant who must demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest, but rather the public authority that must establish that no such interest exists in the particular case.
In the present case, the Ministry had provided no reasoning on this issue. The absence of any assessment of the existence or absence of an overriding public interest rendered the refusal unlawful. The Court held that the presumption of overriding public interest may be rebutted only if the authority demonstrates that the public interest in disclosure is not sufficiently compelling. Since the contested decision contained no reasons, it was impossible to assess whether the substantive requirements of the law had been complied with. The Court reiterated that the reasoning of an administrative act consists of both its factual and legal grounds and enables the person concerned to understand the authority's decision and effectively challenge it before the courts.
For these reasons, the Court annulled the refusal and, pursuant to Article 173(2) of the Administrative Procedure Code, remitted the case to the Ministry for a new decision. In reconsidering the request, the Ministry was instructed either to grant access to the requested information or to adopt a properly reasoned decision explaining why no overriding public interest existed, or otherwise to provide a legally reasoned refusal if the information qualified for protection as official public information.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 293 of 19 March 2025, Administrative Court – Targovishte, First Panel, Administrative Case No. 683/2024, Judge Krasimira Todorova.
5. Civic Initiative for the Removal of the Soviet Army Monument Association v. the Ministry of Culture
By a request dated 12 December 2024, the Civic Initiative for the Removal of the Soviet Army Monument Association, represented by Kuber Saparev, sought access from the Ministry of Culture to information concerning the consultation procedure for the approval of the project to remove the Soviet Army Monument. Specifically, the Association requested:
1.copies of outgoing letters sent to interested parties;
2.opinions submitted by interested parties;
3.information on whether the project had been considered by the Ministry's Specialised Expert Council on Fine Arts; and
4.information on the actions taken by the Ministry in examining and approving the project.
By decision of 20 December 2024, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture refused access on the ground that identical information had already been provided to the Association in response to an earlier request submitted in August 2024, relying on Article 37(1)(3) of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA).
In Judgment No. 10693 of 27 March 2025, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 37, in Administrative Case No. 635/2025, Judge Adrian Yanev annulled the refusal and remitted the case to the Ministry of Culture with instructions to provide access to the requested information.
The Court observed that the parties did not dispute that the request concerned public information. The dispute centred solely on the applicability of Article 37(1)(3) of the APIA, which permits refusal where the requested public information has already been provided to the same applicant within the preceding six months.
The Court held that this provision applies only where the information previously disclosed is identical to the information subsequently requested. In the present case, that requirement was not satisfied. The Ministry's decision of 18 August 2024 had merely informed the applicant that the project would have to be considered by the Specialised Expert Council on Fine Arts, whose members are appointed by the Minister of Culture, and that the project would be examined only after all opinions from interested parties had been received. This demonstrated that, at that time, the project had not yet been considered because the Ministry was still awaiting opinions from interested parties, who were not identified in the earlier decision.
By contrast, the subsequent request sought different information, namely the identity of the interested parties, whether their opinions had been received, whether and when the project had been referred to the Specialised Expert Council on Fine Arts, and what further actions the Ministry had taken in examining and approving the project. None of this information had been requested or disclosed in response to the previous application. The earlier decision merely explained that opinions from interested parties were required before the project could be examined by the Council and did not indicate when the project would be submitted for consideration.
The Court further noted that, over a period of six months, it was entirely possible for the interested parties to have submitted their opinions, for the project to have been referred to the Council, and for further procedural steps to have taken place. The information sought therefore concerned the current status of the administrative procedure, which is inherently subject to change over time. Since these were new factual circumstances that the applicant could not reasonably know, Article 37(1)(3) of the APIA was not applicable.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 10693 of 27 March 2025, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 37, Administrative Case No. 635/2025, Judge Adrian Yanev.
6. Asen Yordanov v. the Customs Agency
By a request submitted in early December 2024, Asen Yordanov sought access from the Customs Agency to information on the total quantities of crude oil from Kazakhstan that had been cleared through customs as imports into Bulgaria via the Rosenets Port since the beginning of 2024. He also requested information on the countries of origin of part of the liquefied gas imported through the Burgas Customs Territorial Directorate during the same period.
Upon receipt of the request, the Customs Agency initiated the third-party consultation procedure under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA).
Bulmarket DM Ltd. consented to disclosure of the requested information.
Toplivo Gaz Ltd. agreed to the disclosure of information concerning the overall quantity of imported liquefied gas but refused consent for the disclosure of information relating to the origin of the imported quantities, the number of unloaded tankers, and information concerning the suppliers and transport companies involved in the imports. The company characterised this information as a trade secret, stating that it did not wish it to be disclosed.
Lukoil Neftochim Burgas AD expressly refused consent to disclosure. It argued that the requested information did not constitute public information within the meaning of the APIA and, in any event, constituted a trade secret under Article 3 of the Trade Secrets Protection Act. According to the company, disclosure of the information would be commercially sensitive and could significantly harm competition in the Bulgarian market for the production, storage and sale of fuels.
By decision of 27 December 2024, the Deputy Director of the Customs Agency refused access, finding that the case fell within the exception under Article 37(1)(2) of the APIA, which permits refusal where disclosure would affect the interests of a third party that has expressly refused consent.
In Judgment No. 3520 of 15 April 2025, the Administrative Court – Burgas, Fourth Panel, in Administrative Case No. 48/2025, Judge Galina Radikova annulled the refusal and remitted the case to the Customs Agency for a fresh decision in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.
The Court observed that the applicant had requested information only about the total quantities of crude oil imported from Kazakhstan through Rosenets Port since the beginning of 2024, together with information on the quantities and countries of origin of liquefied gas imported through Burgas Customs during the same period. The request did not seek any information concerning particular importers.
The fact that the Customs Agency itself could identify the companies responsible for the imports did not, in itself, mean that disclosure of the requested information would affect the interests of those companies so as to require consultation or their consent. Since the third parties concerned were commercial entities, it first had to be established that the requested information constituted a production or trade secret. The Court referred to the statutory definition contained in § 1(5) of the Supplementary Provisions of the APIA, under which a production or trade secret consists of facts, information, decisions or data relating to commercial activities whose confidentiality serves the legitimate interests of their holder.
The Court held that information concerning the aggregate quantities of crude oil and liquefied gas, together with the countries of origin of the imported gas, could not be linked to the commercial activities of any specific undertaking in such a way as to justify treating it as a production or trade secret. The possibility of prejudice to the interests of a third party must be real and demonstrable, rather than merely hypothetical.
Accordingly, the Court found that the Customs Agency had incorrectly applied the substantive law by assuming that disclosure would affect the interests of third parties and by seeking their consent. The refusal was therefore unlawful.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 3520 of 15 April 2025, Administrative Court – Burgas, Fourth Panel, Administrative Case No. 48/2025, Judge Galina Radikova.
7. Mila Cherneva (Capital) v. the National Construction Control Directorate
By a request dated 17 February 2025, journalist Mila Cherneva sought access to eleven penalty orders issued in connection with unlawful construction on Sections 4 and 5 of the Hemus Motorway.
By decision of 24 February 2025, the Secretary General of the National Construction Control Directorate (NCCD) refused access, arguing that the requested information did not constitute public information within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA). According to the Directorate, the eleven penalty orders referred to in the request had been issued under the Administrative Offences and Penalties Act (AOPA) and were served only on the offender. Consequently, third parties without a direct legal interest were not entitled to obtain or become acquainted with their contents. The refusal relied on Article 13(2)(1) of the APIA, which permits restrictions on access to information relating to the internal preparation of administrative acts and having no independent significance.
In Judgment No. 20095 of 11 June 2025, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 50, in Administrative Case No. 2884/2025, Judge Maria Boykinova annulled the refusal and remitted the case to the Secretary General of the National Construction Control Directorate for a fresh decision in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.
The Court rejected the Directorate's conclusion that the requested information did not constitute public information within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the APIA. It held that the information contained in the penalty orders issued in relation to violations identified during the construction of sections of the Hemus Motorway had been collected, created and maintained in connection with the Directorate's official activities, within the meaning of Articles 9(1) and 11 of the APIA. Moreover, disclosure of that information would enable the applicant to form an opinion about the performance of the Directorate's statutory functions.
The Court noted that the National Construction Control Directorate is responsible for supervising compliance with the Spatial Development Act and the secondary legislation adopted under it, including oversight of construction design, the use of compliant construction materials and products, compliance with safety, accessibility and other statutory construction requirements, as well as investigating construction accidents. The requested information directly concerned the exercise of these statutory powers, as it related to penalty orders imposing financial sanctions for unlawful construction on sections of the Hemus Motorway. Since the information concerned the construction of a major public motorway and therefore the condition and safety of road infrastructure, it clearly related to public life in Bulgaria. Consequently, it constituted official public information to which access is, in principle, unrestricted and may be limited only in the exhaustively listed circumstances under Article 13(2) of the APIA, none of which applied in the present case.
The Court further held that the Directorate had incorrectly relied on Article 13(2)(1) of the APIA. That provision applies only to opinions, recommendations, consultations and similar preparatory materials produced during the process of drafting an authority's final decision and lacking independent legal significance. A penalty order, however, is a formal adjudicative act issued by a competent authority in the exercise of powers conferred by law. It is therefore not a preparatory document, and the restriction provided for in Article 13(2)(1) of the APIA is inapplicable.
The Court also rejected the possibility of relying on Article 37(1)(1) of the APIA, which permits refusal where disclosure is restricted by another law. The Administrative Offences and Penalties Act establishes the general rules governing administrative offences and administrative sanctions but contains no provision restricting public access to penalty orders. Accordingly, the Directorate had incorrectly interpreted that legislation as establishing a statutory confidentiality requirement.
Although the request did not specify whether the applicant sought only final penalty orders—that is, orders that had either not been appealed or had become final following judicial review—the Court held that there was no obstacle to providing detailed information concerning the penalty orders at issue, including their reference numbers and dates, the persons against whom they had been issued, the established violations, their legal classification, the amount of the financial sanction or fine imposed, the legal basis for the sanction, and whether each penalty order had entered into force or was under judicial challenge. The Court concluded that disclosure of this information would enable the applicant to assess the actions taken by the National Construction Control Directorate to address unlawful construction on Sections 4 and 5 of the Hemus Motorway.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 20095 of 11 June 2025, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 50, Administrative Case No. 2884/2025, Judge Maria Boykinova.
8. Doroteya Dachkova (Sega) v. the Supreme Prosecutor's Office
By a request dated 9 January 2025, journalist Doroteya Dachkova sought access from the Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes Committed by the Prosecutor General or a Deputy Prosecutor General to the following information:
1.the number of prosecution files and pre-trial criminal proceedings supervised by that prosecutor since taking office, including those currently pending and those already concluded;
2.the registration numbers and dates of commencement of each prosecution file and pre-trial proceeding;
3.the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code under which each case had been or was being investigated; and
4.the final prosecutorial act issued in each prosecution file and pre-trial proceeding that had been completed.
The request was forwarded by the Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes Committed by the Prosecutor General or a Deputy Prosecutor General to the Supreme Prosecutor's Office, pursuant to an order issued by the Acting Prosecutor General in April 2024. Under that order, and on the basis of Article 28(2) of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA), a Deputy Prosecutor General at the Supreme Prosecutor's Office had been designated as the authority competent to decide requests for access to public information.
The Deputy Prosecutor General refused access, arguing that the Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes Committed by the Prosecutor General was not an entity obliged to disclose information under Article 3 of the APIA. According to the decision, the APIA applies only to acts of the judicial authorities adopted in the exercise of their administrative functions, whereas the information requested fell outside that scope. It was further stated that the requested information was not included in the official statistical data concerning the activities of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Bulgaria.
In Judgment No. 21964 of 26 June 2025, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 68, in Administrative Case No. 2839/2025, Judge Vyara Ruseva annulled the refusal and remitted the case to the Deputy Prosecutor General at the Supreme Prosecutor's Office for a fresh decision in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.
The Court held that the Prosecutor responsible for investigating crimes allegedly committed by the Prosecutor General or a Deputy Prosecutor General constitutes a specialised internal unit within the unified structure of the prosecution service, with subject-matter jurisdiction over a specific category of cases. The Court further found that the Prosecutor General is a public authority obliged under Article 3(1) of the APIA, since the Act does not distinguish between state authorities belonging to the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government. There was therefore no legal basis for excluding the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Bulgaria from the category of authorities subject to the APIA.
On the merits, the Court concluded that the requested information constituted official public information within the meaning of Article 11 in conjunction with Article 2(1) of the APIA because it related directly to the activities carried out by the prosecution service under Article 127 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Judiciary Act, and because it enabled the public to assess whether those statutory powers were being properly exercised. Accordingly, the requested information was public information, and the authority was under a legal obligation to disclose it.
The Court further emphasised that the request concerned information relating to the work of the prosecutor responsible for investigating the Prosecutor General and Deputy Prosecutors General. The functioning of the judiciary is a matter of heightened public interest, and the specific activities of prosecutors should not be shielded from public scrutiny. The principles of publicity and transparency are expressly enshrined in Article 5 of the Judiciary Act as well as in the applicable procedural legislation.
Finally, the Court noted that the prosecution service is under a statutory obligation to collect and maintain the requested information concerning investigations involving the Prosecutor General or Deputy Prosecutors General. Such information must be recorded in a dedicated module of the prosecution service's information system. Consequently, the information requested by the applicant already existed and was contained in documents created and maintained by the public authority.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 21964 of 26 June 2025, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 68, Administrative Case No. 2839/2025, Judge Vyara Ruseva.
9. Doroteya Dachkova (Sega) v. the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office
By a request dated 18 February 2025, journalist Doroteya Dachkova sought access from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office (SCPO) to a copy of a report produced following an internal review of cases brought against the prosecution service under the State and Municipal Liability for Damages Act (SMLDA), including cases concerning the allegedly selective initiation and conduct of pre-trial criminal proceedings.
The request was prompted by a press release issued on 12 December 2024 by the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecutor's Office, announcing that, on the instructions of the Acting Prosecutor General, the Appellate Prosecutor of Plovdiv had ordered an internal review of SMLDA cases against the prosecution service, including cases involving allegations of selective initiation and conduct of pre-trial proceedings. According to the announcement, the review had been assigned to Svetlozar Lazarov, a prosecutor at the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecutor's Office, covered the period from 2023 through the first six months of 2024, was to be completed by 30 January 2025, and its findings would be submitted to the Acting Prosecutor General, Borislav Sarafov.
By Decision No. 396 of 4 March 2025, Deputy Prosecutor General Elena Karakasheva refused access on the ground that the requested report constituted a preparatory document without independent significance, relying on Article 13(2)(1) of the Access to Public Information Act (APIA).
In Judgment No. 23626 of 9 July 2025, the Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 76, in Administrative Case No. 3105/2025, Judge Plamen Panayotov annulled the refusal and remitted the case to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office for a fresh decision in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.
The Court held that the requested information concerned the activities of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Bulgaria, whose work, like that of the judiciary generally, is a matter of heightened public interest. The specific activities of prosecutors should not be shielded from public scrutiny, particularly given that the principles of publicity and transparency are expressly enshrined in Article 5 of the Judiciary Act as well as in the relevant procedural legislation.
The Court observed that the APIA does not require public authorities to create new documents, reports or summaries solely for the purposes of responding to access-to-information requests. An authority is required to disclose only information that already exists and is held by it. In the present case, however, the prosecution service had itself expressly ordered that information relating to SMLDA cases, including allegations of selective initiation and conduct of criminal investigations, be collected and maintained. It therefore followed that the requested information already existed and was contained in documents created and held by the competent authority.
The Court further held that compiling or summarising existing information relevant to an access request does not amount to creating a qualitatively new document. Whether the information ultimately disclosed is complete or incomplete is a matter relevant to the lawfulness of any positive disclosure decision rather than a justification for refusing access altogether. Moreover, if an applicant considers the information disclosed to be incomplete, they remain free to submit a further request concerning specific matters not addressed in the initial disclosure.
Accordingly, since the requested information already existed and none of the grounds for refusal under Article 37(1) of the APIA applied, the prosecution service was under a legal obligation to disclose it. The Court added that, if the final inspection report contained information relating to individual criminal cases or prosecution files, any personal data should be redacted in accordance with the Personal Data Protection Act, as Article 2(5) of the APIA expressly excludes personal data from the scope of the right of access.
The Court also found that the contested decision contained no reasoning as to whether an overriding public interest existed, despite Article 13(4) of the APIA, which prohibits restrictions on access to official public information where such an overriding public interest is present. The absence of any assessment on this point prevented effective judicial review of the lawfulness of the refusal and, in itself, constituted an independent ground for its annulment. It both impaired the applicant's right to an effective defence and prevented the Court from assessing whether the statutory requirements had been met.
The administrative file likewise contained no evidence that the prosecution service had considered whether an overriding public interest existed. Article 13(4) of the APIA provides that access to official public information may not be restricted where there is an overriding public interest, defined in § 1(6) of the Supplementary Provisions of the APIA as disclosure aimed at exposing corruption or abuse of power or at enhancing the transparency and accountability of public authorities. In the present case, the Court concluded that disclosure would enable the applicant to form an opinion about the activities of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Bulgaria and that an overriding public interest therefore existed, overriding the restriction relied upon by the authority. The Court also noted that the applicant had expressly identified herself as a journalist with the newspaper Sega when submitting her request.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 23626 of 9 July 2025, Sofia Administrative Court, Second Division, Panel 76, Administrative Case No. 3105/2025, Judge Plamen Panayotov.
10. Nikolay Nedelchev (Sofia) v. State Agency for National Security
By an application dated 17 April 2025, Nikolay Nedelchev requested access from the State Agency for National Security (SANS) to the following information:
1.Since January 2022, how many times has H. B. H. physically visited the headquarters of SANS?
2.How many of those meetings were with the Chairperson of SANS, and how many were with the Deputy Chairpersons, and which Deputy Chairpersons?
3.With which other persons—by name and position—did the same individual meet, and how many times?
4.A detailed breakdown of each visit by date, including the date, time of entry, time of exit, and the SANS officials with whom the individual met on each occasion.
5.To the extent possible, while complying with the mandatory provisions of the Protection of Classified Information Act, what were the topics discussed at each meeting?
In a subsequent clarification submitted on 5 May 2025, the applicant specified that he was referring to H. B. H., the long-serving Member of Parliament from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF).
By a decision dated 16 May 2025, the Administrative Secretary of SANS refused access, arguing that the requested information did not exist in the form requested and that the administration was under no obligation under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA) to compile or create such information. The refusal further stated that access control procedures at SANS headquarters were governed by orders of the Chairperson of the Agency, which constituted classified information and state secrets. It also maintained that the requested information concerned the personal data of third parties, namely SANS employees. Finally, it was noted that SANS does not keep records of the topics discussed during meetings with visitors.
In Judgment No. 40447 of 3 December 2025, the Administrative Court Sofia-City, Second Division, Panel 32, in Administrative Case No. 5973/2025, Judge Krasimira Milachkova annulled the refusal and ordered the Administrative Secretary of SANS to provide access to the requested information.
First, the Court noted that, according to information published on the website of the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria, H. B. H. had served as a Member of Parliament throughout the entire period covered by the request. Accordingly, during the relevant period he was a public office holder within the meaning of the Anti-Corruption Act.
Second, the Court observed that the Administrative Secretary of SANS had claimed that the requested information was classified. However, this conclusion was not supported by the evidence. In a letter to the Court, SANS stated that documents marked with a security classification would be submitted separately. No such documents were submitted before the close of the proceedings. The Court therefore held that the contested decision had been adopted in breach of the rules of administrative procedure, as the relevant facts had not been fully established, contrary to the obligations under Articles 35 and 36 of the Administrative Procedure Code.
Third, the Court found that the decision contained no assessment of whether there was an overriding public interest. In the Court’s view, such an interest clearly existed in this case, since the requested information was capable of enhancing the transparency and accountability of a public body subject to Article 3 of the APIA.
Finally, the Court held that the requested information did not concern the private life or personal integrity of the third party, but rather his public activities as a Member of Parliament and the official activities of public officials acting in their official capacities. The information therefore did not constitute personal data within the meaning of the APIA or the Personal Data Protection Act. The Court emphasized that the status of a Member of Parliament entails a higher degree of public scrutiny and correspondingly broader access to information concerning the exercise of public functions. This approach is also reflected in Article 4(1)(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, which imposes heightened accountability on public office holders. Under Article 2 of the same Act, its purpose is to protect the public interest through effective anti-corruption measures and by ensuring that persons holding public office exercise their powers honestly and in compliance with the Constitution and the laws of Bulgaria. The Court concluded that the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act and the APIA should be interpreted systematically and in conjunction with one another, in accordance with Article 46 of the Normative Acts Act.
The judgment is final.
1.Judgment No. 40447 of 3 December 2025 of the Administrative Court Sofia-City, Second Division, Panel 32, Administrative Case No. 5973/2025, Judge Krasimira Milachkova.