Speech by Aleksander Kashumov, Executive Director of the Access to Information Programme, before the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, at the 17th Session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Prevention of Corruption.
Like many of my colleagues, I come from civil society rather than government. Still, I can say that we have had excellent cooperation with Bulgarian governments, regardless of their political affiliation, as well as with the public administration. We have also done extensive work internationally.
This year, we are celebrating our 30th anniversary. The Access to Information Programme in Bulgaria, the second-oldest NGO of its kind in Europe, was founded in 1996. We carry out legal analysis and advocacy, publish reports, and have produced six books on access to information litigation. We have also provided legal assistance, supported court cases, and trained public officials extensively. Over the last 25 years, we have trained more than 20,000 civil servants.
We also co-founded Right to Know Day in 2002. It was later officially recognized by the UN and by UNESCO as the International Day for Universal Access to Information, following strong advocacy by our friends from African civil society.
At the same time, we co-founded, and remain part of the steering committee of, the FOI Advocates Network, which brings together around 240 NGOs and 800 access to information experts.
Turning to Bulgaria, we have had an access to information law since 2000. At that time, there were only around 25 such laws in the world. Today, according to the RTI Rating, which measures and ranks national access to information laws, there are 142. Given that there are 192 parties to the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, around 50 countries still have some way to go.
In Bulgaria, when we started in 2000, public authorities were often reluctant to provide access even to budgets or basic financial reports. Today, that would be almost unthinkable.
We have made significant progress. As has already been said several times, access to information today is not only about access to documents. It is also about access to entire datasets: company registers, property registers, beneficial ownership information, asset declarations, and more. At the same time, we should not forget access to documents, because it remains essential.
To give you an idea, Bulgaria has a population of around 6.4 million people, and last year there were more than 18,000 information requests. That is about 30% more than the previous year, when there were around 13,000 requests. This shows public trust in the access to information law. People rely on this right.
At the same time, the number of court appeals remained approximately the same, despite the increase in requests. This suggests that, to a large extent, people are satisfied with the information they receive. In my view, this is an important indicator of progress.
For many years, citizens in Bulgaria have called the Access to Information Act “the law of the citizens.” They have also described it as one of the few laws that really works. The number of refusals is below 4%, although, of course, refusals usually concern important information.
Proactive publication is becoming increasingly important. As an NGO, we conduct periodic surveys. The Council of Ministers Administration monitors the overall implementation of the law, while we focus specifically on proactive publication.
Our most recent monitoring exercise was based on 94 indicators for executive bodies. It showed visible progress. In our 2024 assessment, some bodies had almost 100% compliance with their legal obligations to proactively publish information.
We are also making progress on open data and machine-readable data, supported through the Open Government Partnership. Today, there are around 10,100 datasets from nearly all executive bodies, except for the smallest municipalities. We also prepare a map of Bulgaria, using colors to show how territorial bodies perform.
Among anti-corruption bodies, the Anti-Corruption Commission had made progress in proactive publication. Unfortunately, it was closed this year. The National Audit Office, which traditionally ranks very highly in our monitoring, now plays an important role. The Ministry of the Interior, which also has significant powers, has also improved its performance.
It is also worth looking at how monitoring and oversight work in Bulgaria. We do not have an independent information commissioner or commission, as many countries do. However, we do have very efficient administrative courts, which is exceptional, at least to my knowledge.
Every year, the Council of Ministers Administration publishes a report on public administration. One of its four chapters focuses on access to information and provides detailed statistics. The figures I have mentioned come from this official report, which makes it easier to analyze implementation and make recommendations for improvement.
Oversight is exercised by 28 administrative courts. Anyone who has submitted an information request can go to court if access is refused. The court fee is only EUR 5.11, so access to justice is relatively easy. The procedure is also fast. Courts usually decide cases within two to six months, and there is no further appeal.
The lack of a second-instance appeal could be seen as a problem. However, the courts generally perform well from the applicant’s perspective. Around 74% of applications are entirely or partly successful. So Bulgaria still does not have an information commissioner, but it is not clear whether one is needed. The Ombudsman also has certain powers and can issue recommendations in cases that may not justify going to court.
There are also some important features of the law itself. As has already been said, access to information laws should be simple. Openness and access should be the principle, and restrictions should be applied only in limited circumstances.
Our law also contains an important overriding public interest test. This means that even if information falls under an exemption, it should still be disclosed where there is an overriding public interest — especially when accountability and transparency are at stake. Public bodies can apply this test themselves, and if they refuse access, the courts can review their decision.
Several cases show how the law is used by citizens, journalists, and NGOs, and how it supports the aims of Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention.
In one case, a judge acted as a citizen and used access to information to reveal problems with the e-voting system for the Supreme Judicial Council. As a result, public institutions took action. The Supreme Judicial Council changed the e-voting system, and Parliament amended the law.
Another success story concerns an active citizen who used the law to bring greater openness to the public prosecution, especially in landmark cases. As a result of his cases, the public prosecution decided not to classify information on the general status of investigations in such cases. This information is now available on the prosecution’s public portal, where anyone can check the status of these cases.
Access to information has also been important in relation to public EU funds. In addition, our law partly covers the private sector. For example, hospitals are subject to the law with respect to public funds they receive. A well-known Bulgarian journalist investigating the health sector obtained substantial information about public spending by large hospitals. This revealed that management teams were using a significant share of funds to pay themselves rather than ordinary doctors and medical staff. The findings created serious pressure for reform in the sector.
I will stop with the examples here and turn to one final concern: SLAPPs. These are becoming a serious problem. Journalists, media outlets, and NGOs that use the Access to Information Act are sometimes later targeted by abusive lawsuits. These lawsuits may be brought by politicians, businesspeople, large companies, or even people connected to the shadow economy who do not want certain information to become public.
We are now in the process of adopting legislation to address this problem. My recommendations are therefore the following.
First, support access to information laws. They are essential for preventing corruption and strengthening public participation. Public participation is not possible without information.
Second, monitor and encourage proactive publication of information, while maintaining the right balance with other rights, such as personal data protection.
Third, adopt anti-SLAPP legislation. This is something we are doing in the EU, but it is also important more broadly. Such laws are necessary to protect access to information, public participation, and effective anti-corruption work.
Finally, we must be careful not to shift the burden of transparency from public bodies to civil society. In recent years, we have seen a trend toward so-called foreign agents laws, and sometimes lobbyist laws, which put the spotlight on civil society rather than on public institutions. This is a serious concern. We should not allow standards to shift in a way that weakens the fight against corruption.
Some of the photos I showed are from our Right to Know Day ceremonies, where we recognize those who have used access to information laws effectively. We also give two negative awards: the padlock and the twisted key. These go to the least open institution and to the funniest refusal under the law.
