The APIA in the Fight Against Corruption

Why the 14-days period confuses the administration of the Municipality of Sliven

Yurii Ivanov is an engineer and an economist from the city of Sliven. His career development ends when he sends a signal for wrongdoings in the services he used to work. As a result, he is fired on the ground of lowering the reputation of the services. Then he has chosen another way to fight against corruption – establishes the civil association “Public Barometer.” For a fifth year, the association and its chairperson take part in all important things in the life of the citizens of Sliven. According to the citizens, they are doing it with success. The association has been recognized twice for actively using the Access to Public Information Act at the annual ceremonies on the Right to Know Day – 28 September.

Vesselina Sedlarska

How did you get to know and use the Access to Public Information Act (APIA)?

The law did not exist when we started work on our first anti-corruption project. At that time, I was aware that there was something that impeded me to collect the necessary information. I was begging for information – literally. Then the APIA fell as if from the sky and became an instrument in my work. It was difficult in the beginning. New paths had to be walked. People were not aware of the APIA. The Access to Information Programme (AIP) still had not started its trainings of citizens, NGOs, journalists and public officials how to use the APIA. The law might have been known in Sofia, but in the country, the situation was horrible. It turned out that by filing access to information requests, our organization was training the public officials.

How often do you use the APIA?

I can be very specific in terms of the municipality. Just recently, I have requested information about the use of the law from them. It turned out that only one request was filed in 2001 and it was by the “Public Barometer.” In 2002, the total number of filed requests was four and the only requestor was again our NGO. In 2003, the number grows, and out of total of 22 requests, 12 were filed by the “Public Barometer.” In 2004, we have addressed to the municipality 6 requests out of the total 13. “Public Barometer” is the only requestor to the Regional Governor’s Office. I have used the law to request information from other institutions as well.

This makes you a reliable source of the attitude of the administration towards the law.

The difficulty of the APIA for the administrations comes from their technological unpreparedness to implement the law. Especially in the beginning, they did not even have electronic data bases of the documents. They could not just press “print” and the 14 days period for the provision of the information put them in terror. Secondly, they did not have archives. I am sure about that because we have requested information about a past period and it turned out that it was just not available. It was becoming clear that the administration did not work with its own documents, but was doing things for the current moment. When the moment passes, it is as if nothing has been done – like a drawing in the water. That is why they see the law as dangerous. It will show their inability to be accountable. People like us from the NGO sector, they are trained how to work with documents, make reports, be accountable. The administration is not. Logically, if the administration does not keep account of its work, it is not aware of its duties, its work, what is expected to achieve, what its job description is. The result is the chaos with the law. They assign an official to receive the requests under the APIA and that person becomes a lonely warrior. That person is between the hammer and the anvil, between the requestor and the provider of the information. The problem is that these people being officials in the administration, take the side of the administration and not the side of the law. As a result they start twisting the law. For instance, they make up time-frames. In response to a request I filed, I received a letter from the Municipality of Sliven stating that the 14 days legally prescribed period is for taking the decision. The information I could seek after 60 days. I was astonished. As a response to an APIA filed request I received a letter interpreting my rights under the law wrongly.
 
What is the situation in other institutions?

The Regional Governor wanted to close our NGO. That was in a period when I was requesting a lot of information about the management of state property. There were suspicions about the regional governor’s involvement in unclear operations and we sent a signal to the economic police. The investigating police officer asked the regional governor to give testimony. As a result, the regional governor started a law suit against us and wanted the court to close the organization. He did not win the court in Sliven. He did not win in the Court of Appeal in Bourgas. The worst situation, however, is in the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works. That is why we are suing them to obtain access to information.

What is the result of the access to information litigation?

We have started a number of proceedings. Some have ended, others continue. We have won the case against the refusal of the Municipal Council in Sliven to provide the reports of the managers and surveyors of the municipal companies. There are three pending cases against the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works. They are very slow, very slow. I expect the end of a case against a refusal of the Regional Labour Inspection in Sliven. In these court cases, I have received the expert and methodological help of the AIP legal team. The AIP attorneys have represented the “Public Barometer” in two of the cases.

You are seeing the weaknesses of the APIA implementation. Do you see any weaknesses in the law itself?

I think that there are some public bodies that should be included in the scope of the law. I am interested in the management of municipal property because I believe that corruption is possible wherever there are economic interests. That is why I think that the managers of the municipal companies should be obliged under the Access to Public Information Act. These people, they remain in the shadow, they do not take any personal responsibility while they are part of the public life of our city. These are experienced people, ready to run for important positions. That is why I think the directors of state and municipal companies should be obliged bodies under the APIA. I have heard that the Greek law provides for big sanctions for incompliance. This is the second weakness of the law. The responsibility for incompliance is unclear. Imagine the citizen behind whom no NGO or company stands. What could they do without a lawyer if the administration tries to crash them? The law should protect the citizen, not the public official, who has crashed them. There should be a punishment and it should be personal. The law should work as a disciplinary tool. Everyone should pay their fee personally, not from the budget. If the public official does not understand the law, I do not see the logic of sanctioning the budget that we all collect.
 

August 2005

This case is part of the book "Civil Participation and Access to Information (15 Years of the APIA, 37 stories of NGOs)" published by AIP within the implementation of the project “Enhancing the Capacity of Nongovernmental Organizations to Seek Public Information” supported with a grant under the NGO Programme in Bulgaria under the Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area 2009 – 2014 (www.ngogrants.bg).

The whole responsibility for the content shall be taken by the Access to Information Programme Foundaiton and it cannot be assumed under any circumstances that the document reflects the official stance of the  Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area and the Operator of the Programme for NGO support in Bulgaria.