Request:
In November 2015, Ivan Petrov (Sofia) filed a request to the municipal company Sofia Urban Mobility Center (UMC) asking for a copy of the Instruction on Passengers’ Inspection in the public transport in Sofia.
Response:
The refusal of the Executive Director of the UMC stated as factual grounds that the requested information is administrative public information related to the company's operating activities. At the same time, it is stated that the information is not public under the APIA. As the legal basis for the refusal, Art. 37 of the APIA was stated.
First Instance Court Decision:
By No. 3583/26.05.2016, the Administrative Court Sofia – City (ACSC) repealed the refusal and returned the file to the director of the UMC with instructions for granting access. The Court held that the reasons given in the refusal were ungrounded, inconsistent, devoid of any legal basis and generally irrelevant to the dispute. According to the court, the decision of refusal is devoid of legal basis, as the refusal is grounded in the provision of Art. 37 of the APIA, which in the its first paragraph has three hypotheses and none of which coincided with the stated factual reasons for the refusal. The stated factual grounds that the requested information is administrative and related to the center’s operating activities do not exist in the quoted provision as a ground for refusal. Thus, there is a contradiction in the legal basis and the factual ground, thus making the refusal deprived of any legal basis for its issuing.
Complaint at the second instance court:
The decision of the ACSC was challenged by the Deputy Mayor of the Sofia Municipality (as the principal of the UMC).
Second Instance Court Decision:
By Decision No. 1539/05.02.2018, the Supreme Administrative Court found the cassation appeal of the Deputy Mayor of the Sofia Municipality is unfounded and upheld the decision of the ACSC. Supreme justices agree that the dispute of the case is whether access to administrative information is granted under APIA. Every citizen has the right to access public information, which is divided into administrative and official, pursuant to the APIA. Access to administrative public information is free - Art. 13, para. 1 of the APIA. In the particular, the hypotheses under Art. 13, para. 2 of the APIA for limiting the right of access to information regarding preparatory documents, which do not have significance on their own, are not present. In its refusal, the obliged body has referred to Art. 37 of APIA, stating that the information is not public. In this case, however, the information is public within the meaning of Art. 2, para. 1 of the APIA, since it refers to the order and the manner in which the UMC Executive Director has designated to authorized persons to exercise control powers and inspections of passengers in the public transport of the Sofia Municipality. The first instance court had rightly pointed out that the facts set out in the refusal were inconsistent with the legal grounds. The decision is final.
Impact of the case:
At the end of February 2018, the UMC provided the requestor with a copy of the instruction.