Zornitsa Markova (Capital daily) v. the Ministry of Economy

Request:

In the summer of 2016, Zornitsa Markova, a journalist from the Capital Daily filed a request to the Minister of Economy asking for access to the correspondence between the Ministry of Economy (ME) and the companies of which the ministry was the principal with over 50% ownership, regarding the amount of money and in which banks the state bodies and state enterprises had entrusted their deposits in 2009 and 2010.

 

Response:

The Minister of Economy refused to grant access to the requested information on the grounds that the subject matter of the reqest was not clear and also that the requested information was not public, consequently the APIA was not applicable for access to it.

 

Complaint:

The complaint filed before the Supreme Administrative Court against the refusal of the Minister of Economy argued that the subject matter was clearly stated in the request.

First Instance Court Decision:

With a Ruling No. 4125/29.03.2018, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) left the complaint without consideration on the grounds that it was overdue.

 

Private Complaint:

Against the SAC Ruling was filed a private complaint arguing that as the decision of refusal had not stated the court of jurisduction and the timeframe for complaint, the 2 month period under the Administrative Procedure Code was applicable and the complaint was filed within it.

 

Second Instance Court Decision:

With a Ruling No. 7665/08.06.2018, a Five-member panel of the SAC repealed the first instance court ruling and returned the case back to the same panel for continuing the  proceedings.

 

First Instance Court Decision (again):

By Decision No. 12927/24.10.2018, the SAC repealed the refusal and returned the request to the Minister of Economy for a new decision in line with issued court instructions on the interpretation and application of the law. The judges assume that the correspondence of the Ministry of Finance (MF) and the Ministry of Economy and Energy (MEE)[1] and, subsequently, that of the Ministry of Economy with the companies in which the latter is the principal and for the provision of information on what amount of money and in which banks the deposits of those state authorities and state-owned enterprises have been deposited as of 31.09.2009 and respectively as of 31.03.2010 is an activity related to the fulfillment of the duties of the administration in the Ministry of the Economy. Therefore, the authority had incorrectly assumed that it was not public information, as far as it possesses the character and the features of official public information.

 

Complaint at the second instance court:

The court decision was appealed by the Ministry of Economy before a Five-member panel of the SAC.

 

Second Instance Court Decision:

By Decision No. 2740/ 25.02.2019 of the Supreme Administrative Court, a Five – member Panel with Judge-Rapporteur Yovka Drajeva, upheld the decision of the first instance court for repealing of the refusal. The judges accepted as correct the conclusions of the first instance court that the requestor has fulfilled the instructions of the administrative body under Art. 29, para 1 of the APIA, for which reason the authority had to consider the request in essence under the APIA. The request is specific, the subject of the requested information is clear. There is no legal basis for the reasons stated by the administrative authority that the requested information was not public. The requestor has requested information that was held in the Ministry of Economy. The same is sufficiently specified in connection with the correspondence with another institution, which is why it has the character of administrative official information in the meaning of Art. 9-11 of the APIA. The court held that the reasoning of the administrative body is based on grounds which are mutually exclusive, by denying the public nature of the information sought and refusing to consider the application as incomplete. In the absence of grounds under Art. 29, para. 2 of the APIA for refusal to grant access to information, the court has lawfully repealed the refusal and has returned the request for reconsideration.

 

The decision is final.