The Access to Public Information Act does not accept a silent refusal which is a ground enough for the latter’s repealing. This was the ground on which the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) repealed the silent refusal of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (MRDPW). The request was filed by Yurii Ivanov from the town of Sliven at the end of 2011. He requested information about the inspection report of the Inspectorate at the MRDPW on the activity of Water Supply and Sewerage Ltd – Sliven for the period 2005-2010. The inspection was initiated after a signal for wrongdoings in the public procurement tenders for water-meters. The MRDPW did not respond within the 14-days prescribed legal period. With a Decision as of January 13, 2012 (in Bulgarian), a panel of the SAC repealed the refusal and obligated the administrative body to respond. The justices pointed out that the practices of repealing silent refusals of public bodies is constant and there is no reason to be changed in the particular case.
If more than one body obliged under the APIA holds certain information, there is no obstacle of requesting any of them to provide it. This was the ground on which the Administrative Court – Haskovo repealed the refusal of the mayor of Harmanli to provide a copy of a report after an inspection of the Public Financial Inspection Agency (PFIA) in the Municipality of Harmanli. The information was requested by the citizen Ivan Atanasov from the town of Harmanli in the end of 2011. The mayor responded that the information should be requested from the PFIA, which is the generator of the information. The refusal also stated that the information fell under the exception provided by Art. 13, Para. 2 of the Access to Public Information Act which is related to the so called preparatory information with no significance of its own. With a Decision as of January 31, 2012 (in Bulgarian), the Administrative Court – Haskovo turned the request back to the mayor for reconsideration. The justices pointed out that if the mayor had the requested information, he was obliged to provide access to it, no matter that it was generated by another institution. The court did not accept the mayor’s arguments that report made by the financial inspection constituted preparatory information with no significance of its own.
The court repealed the refusal of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works to provide information about the inspection on the deal for the sale of 122 dekars from the seaside of the town of Varna. The information was requested by Kalina Pavlova from Varna in the end of 2010. Then the “Legal” Directorate of the MRDPW responded that the ministry did not dispose of such information. With a Decision as of February 2, 2012 (in Bulgarian), a panel of the Administrative Court – Sofia City (ACSC) repealed the refusal and turned the request back for reconsideration by the MRDPW. The court pointed out that the refusal contradicted a statement of the minister of regional development and public works made as a response to the question of a member of parliament on March 19, 2010. The latter was evidenced by the transcript of the parliamentary session presented at the court. Then the minister confirmed that he had ordered a thorough inspection, including the MRDPW’s involvement in the procedure preceding the sale of the so called “Alley First” and the preparation of the respective analysis. The court panel assumed that after the assigning of the inspection, most certainly ministerial officials had undertaken some action in that regard, even in the case that the inspection had not been completed with an act. Consequently, an obligation had arisen for the MRDPW to inform the requestor about the current state of the inspection – if it was done, was it completed, what was reported to the minister and what actions were undertaken by the administration.
Information about the inspections of the State Agency for National Security (SANS) is state secret. This was the conclusion drawn by a panel of the Administrative Court – Sofia City on the case of Institute for Market Economics Foundation against the refusal of the Director of the SANS. The NGO filed a request in June 2011 requesting about the number of inspection of nongovernmental organizations completed by the agency, the results from those inspections, and the criteria on which the NGOs were selected for inspection. The Director of the SANS disclosed only the criteria, but refused the information about the inspections and the results from them on the ground that this was state secret. With a Decision as of February 8, 2012 (in Bulgarian), the Administrative Court – Sofia City dismissed the appeal of the Institute for Market Economics and upheld the refusal of the SANS. The decision stated that the requested information fell under two points of the List of Categories of Information to be Classified as State Secret (Schedule 1 to Art. 25) under the Protection of Classified Information Act.
The refusal of the Mayor of Pazardzhik to provide information about a list of all contracts signed by the municipality in the period 2007-2010 was repealed by the second instance court. The request was filed by the local newspaper Videlina. In February 2011 (in Bulgarian), but the mayor did not respond. The Administrative Court – Pazardzhik declared the silent denial unlawful and turned the request back to the mayor for consideration. The mayor, however, appealed the court decision, but the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the first instance court. In their Decision as of February 10, 2012, (in Bulgarian), the justices pointed out that the requested information was clearly defined – number of contracts signed by the municipality for supply and execution services, list of the subcontractors, the price of each contract and the information about unpaid debts under these contracts. Thus, once again, but a year later, the Mayor of Pazardzhik has 14-days to respond to the request.
The Administrative Court – Sofia City (ACSC) repealed the refusal of the Sofia Municipality to provide information about a project for green areas to be realized in the territory of Park “Vazrazhdane” in Sofia. Mrs. Mila Trifonova requested access to the documents related to the issuing of a decision for giving consent to a municipal company to spend funds for the realization of green areas. The file includes a report, a statement of the permanent committee and a draft decision. With the same request Trifonova demanded information about the expert assessment of a particular property in Sofia, as well as the program for the management and disposition of municipal property in 2011. With a decision as of September 2011, the Chief Secretary of the Sofia Municipality refused access on the ground that the report and the corresponding documents fell under the exception provided by Art. 13, Para. 2 of the Access to Public Information Act related to preparatory information with no significance of its own. Regarding the rest of the requested information, it was pointed out that it did not fall within the scope of the APIA.
With a Decision as of February 22, 2012 (in Bulgarian), a panel of the ACSC repealed the refusal and turned the request back to the Sofia Municipality for reconsideration. In their judgment, the panel pointed out that the Sofia Municipality should give an answer to every demand in the request. The administrative body did not ground its assumption that part of the information was not public under the APIA. Regarding the preparatory documents exemption, the court assumed that it was applicable only if a final act was issued by the administrative body since the public would obtain information from it. The court also pointed out that access should not be denied to the whole of a report on the ground of preparatory documents since besides opinions and recommendations, the report also contained findings with significance of their own as they reflect a momentous situation which was not subject to change.
The Administrative Court – Sofia City repealed the silent refusal of the Governor of the National Social Security Institute (NSSI) to provide information about the bonuses received by the NSSI officials. The information was requested by Mr. Ivan Dzhabirov from the town of Blagoevgrad in March 2011. He demanded access to the “total amount of the sum, paid to the NSSI officials, beyond their labor remunerations, for additional material stimulus (like Christmas and Easter bonuses, etc)” for 2008, 2009 and 2010. The Governor of the NSSI did not respond within the legally prescribed period. With a Decision as of February 23, 2012 (in Bulgarian), the ACSC repealed the silent refusal and turned the request for explicit decision. The court pointed out that the silent refusal is not acceptable and that condition is enough for its repealing. The court, however, did not decide if the requested information was public since it assumed that the question should be solved by the administrative body when deciding on the request.