Request:
In September 2017, Dorothea Dachkova (journalist from Sega daily) filed a request to the Chairman of the Commission for the Withdrawal of Illegally Acquired Property (KONPI) demanding information on the Commission's expenditure incurred in the proceedings for the revocation of the property acquired by the banker Tsvetan Vassilev.
Response:
The Chairperson of CONPI refuses to provide the requested information on the grounds that it was “official secret.” The refusal also stated that the requested information was "trade secret."
First Instance Court Decision:
By Decision No. 1448/06.03.2018 (in Bulgarian), Administrative Court Sofia City repealed the refusal and returned the request to the Chairman of the KONPI with instructions to provide the requested information. The court accepts that it is public by definition – as it concerns expenses incurred by the commission in connection with the proceedings for revoking the property acquired by Tsvetan Vassilev. These expenditures represent public budget funds and the commission owes transparency in their spending, respectively the provision of information to citizens under the APIA, which makes it impossible to share the view that the APIA is not applicable to the activity of the commission. The requested information is not an official secret within the meaning of the Protection of Classified Information Act, since the simple reference to Art. 26, para 1 of the PCIA does not justify the existence of a ground for refusal. In the present case, it is unclear why the defendant assumes that the information on the costs incurred in the specific case is an official secret or how the provision of such information would harm the interests of the State or third parties, especially since the provision under the APIA does not constitute "unregulated access," but rather the opposite. The costs incurred cannot be classified as trade secrets either. No analysis has been made by the obliged body if there is an overriding public interest in the presence of which it owes the provision of the information, despite the existence of a ground for refusal (which is not found). The burden of the refutation of the presumption for the overriding public interest in the disclosure is entrusted by the law to the obliged authority.
Complaint:
The decision was appealed by KPKONPI before the Supreme Administrative Court.
Second Instance Court Decision:
By Decision No. 8457/05.06.2019, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first instance court which had repealed the refusal and had returned the request to the Chairman of the KONPI with instructions to provide the requested information.
Impact of the case:
The journalist had produced a series of critical publications on the lack of transparency of the Commission for Combating Corruption and the Withdrawal of Illegally Acquired Property (KPKONPI) - an authority which should promote the principles of transparency and accountability as basic means of combating corruption.