2005
Excerpt from AIP annual report Access to Information in Bulgaria 2005:
In 2005, fifty-six citizens turned to AIP for legal assistance in cases when the right of personal data protection was violated. Most of these cases were related to the refusal of the administrators of personal data to provide citizens access to their own personal data.
Access to documents containing health information was frequently denied. The AIP team was addressed by a citizen who had been treated in two different hospitals. After the end of her treatment, she was given only the treatment history and not the results of diagnostic tests. The citizen requested copies of the results of all medical examinations she had gone through during her stay in the hospital. However, they refused the information, saying that it was not their policy to provide these documents and that they would keep the results to be presented before the National Health Insurance as proof that they had really done the examinations. After the submission of a special request for access to personal data to the managers of the two hospitals, the results were obtained from one of them. The other did not respond. The silent refusal was appealed before the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data and a decision is pending. Unfortunately, this case is not unique. Frequently, hospitals refuse to give to their patients the original examination results since they fear that they will not be reimbursed by the National Health Insurance Fund.
The Ministry of Interior also regularly refuses to provide access to citizens to their own personal data. There was a particularly interesting case, with which AIP was asked to help. Legal proceedings had been started against a minor under the Act for the Prevention of Criminal Offences or Other Misbehaviour by Minors. The father requested the Sofia Regional Prosecutor's Office to read the file of his minor son. It is obvious that such information was necessary in terms of the future upbringing of the child and the protection of his rights. The deputy Prosecutor refused to provide access to the requested information. The refusal was appealed before the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data. The Commission issued a decision obligating that the Regional Prosecutor's Office give the father access to the personal data of his son, while protecting the personal data of third parties.
In 2005, fifty-six citizens turned to AIP for legal assistance in cases when the right of personal data protection was violated. Most of these cases were related to the refusal of the administrators of personal data to provide citizens access to their own personal data.
Access to documents containing health information was frequently denied. The AIP team was addressed by a citizen who had been treated in two different hospitals. After the end of her treatment, she was given only the treatment history and not the results of diagnostic tests. The citizen requested copies of the results of all medical examinations she had gone through during her stay in the hospital. However, they refused the information, saying that it was not their policy to provide these documents and that they would keep the results to be presented before the National Health Insurance as proof that they had really done the examinations. After the submission of a special request for access to personal data to the managers of the two hospitals, the results were obtained from one of them. The other did not respond. The silent refusal was appealed before the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data and a decision is pending. Unfortunately, this case is not unique. Frequently, hospitals refuse to give to their patients the original examination results since they fear that they will not be reimbursed by the National Health Insurance Fund.
The Ministry of Interior also regularly refuses to provide access to citizens to their own personal data. There was a particularly interesting case, with which AIP was asked to help. Legal proceedings had been started against a minor under the Act for the Prevention of Criminal Offences or Other Misbehaviour by Minors. The father requested the Sofia Regional Prosecutor's Office to read the file of his minor son. It is obvious that such information was necessary in terms of the future upbringing of the child and the protection of his rights. The deputy Prosecutor refused to provide access to the requested information. The refusal was appealed before the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data. The Commission issued a decision obligating that the Regional Prosecutor's Office give the father access to the personal data of his son, while protecting the personal data of third parties.