The Unfortunate Information Requestor

The adventure of the chairperson of the Association for the
Protection of Animals – Varna in the world of formalized public administration

Fany Davidova

Just before Christmas, the child of a friend of mine wrote a letter to Santa Clause wishing for a specific gift. The old man, however, turned out to be a little fussy and wrote back that the kid had not read books enough and Santa would think about the reading the kid’s letter at all, leaving it at the elves. The kid did not give up and the next day, he wrote a protesting letter to the elves, saying that first he was regularly reading books, and second the job of Santa Clause was to make toys and not to spy on kinds, and if the old man did not want to, he asked the elves to bring him the gift.

My friend, who as it has become clear was playing the role of Santa Claus, was regretting already that he had started that game instead of applying the ordinary bringing up methods. However, there was no way back: after two weeks of intensive correspondence kid – elves – Santa, the epistolary saga ended with the complete capitulation of the exhausted Santa Clause.
And if you think that this is possible only in the world of a kid, do not haste into conclusions – in the world of the formalized public administration such flick – flacks are not seldom, only that the ending in these administrative stories is seldom happy and the characters often get nervous breakdowns.

In 2012, Ms. Radulova, a Chairperson of the Association for Animal Protection – Varna and resident of the city of Varna, filed a request to the Regional Food Safety Directorate (RFSD). He wanted to receive something very simple – copies of the finding protocols issued by the directorate as a result of completed inspections.
Has the administration of the RFSD been confused by the subject of the request? No. It was crystal clear. Have the officials doubted about the application of any of the legally prescribed restrictions to the access to information? No. It was obvious that the information was subject to disclosure. Did Radulova get a decision for the provision of the information? Not at all!

I do not want to leave you with the impression that the administration of the RFSD left out the request due to laziness or carelessness. Even the contrary – hectic work started on the absolutely simple request and intensive correspondence started between the RFSD – Varna and the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency (BFSA) in the capital of Sofia. I will further present the case in brief because there is a potential risk that the readers get a sea sickness.

1. The RFSD – Varna which holds the information (as it is the body that performed the inspections and issued the protocols), resent Radulova’s request to the BFSA – Sofia.
2. The BFSA – Sofia issued a decision for the provision of the information, but it, however, did not have the information. That is why:
3. The BFSA – Sofia sent a letter requesting the RFSD – Varna to send the copies of the requested protocols so that it could kindly provide them to Ms. Radulova.
4. The RFSD – Varna sent the protocols to the BFSA – Sofia.
5. The BFSA informed Radulova that it would provide the requested information and invited her to receive her after transfering the due fees for the provision.

Ms. Radulova naively thought to follow the logic and with the BFSA – Sofia decision in hand went to the RFSD – Varna because it did not even occur to her that she should catch the night train Varna – Sofia (apr. 500 km) in order to receive information which had been generated and held in Varna.

However, the quick and logical resolving of the case was not in the agenda of the RFSD – Varna. They obviously did not want to end the case of Radulova. They showed obstinacy and refused to provide the information, explaining that according to the Internal APIA Implementation Rules of the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency, the only authorized to issue decisions on APIA request and to personally grant the access was the executive director of the BFSA. Him only, and no one else. So, the officials from the RFSD – Varna advised Ms. Radulova to catch the train if she wanted to receive the cherished copies of finding protocols.

After those instructions, the bewildered Radulova turned to AIP for legal advice. I will not go into details about the numerous phone calls I had with the BFSA – Sofia in an effort to convince them that their actions are absurd, that the APIA explicitly establishes an obligation for the regional offices of the central executive bodies to provide information independently.

I did not succeed. The APIA responsible official explained to me kindly but coldly that she was not very well aware of the APIA, but she knew very well the Internal APIA Implementation Rules and that according to them information may be granted only in the BFSA in Sofia. Eventually, Ms. Radulova had to authorize a relative from Sofia to receive the requested information.

In Ms. Radulova consolation, I would like to emphasize that she is not the only unfortunate requestor of information from the RFSD – Varna. However, even after an unequivocal  decision of the Administrative Court – Varna, the regional directorate had not changed its practices.

The court delivered a decision on a similar as the above described case (administrative case No. 2832 in the docket of the ACV for 2012).

The court found that: “The argument of the RFSD that the Director of the Regional Directorate was not a competent body to issue decisions on access to public information provision/refusal is ungrounded. Pursuant to Art. 3, Para. 1 of the APIA, the law applies to access to public information that is created by or held by the state bodies, their regional offices, and the local self-governance bodies of the Republic of Bulgaria, hereinafter referred to as "the bodies."Apparent from the legal definition of bodies obliged under the APIA, regional offices of the state bodies are defined as “the bodies” – obliged to provide public information, issue decisions under the APIA, etc. The Internal APIA Implementation Rules of the Bulgarian Food Safety Agency presented at the court hearing are not a normative act and shall not ignore the rule prescribed by the law. The procedure elaborated in the internal rules might be obligatory for the agency officials, but not for the court. Art. 4. Para. 4 of the Internal Rules provides that decisions for the provision of access to public information are shall be taken by the Executive Director of the BFSA. This provision contradicts the provision of Art. 3, Para. 1 of the Access to Public Information Act. On that grounds, the Internal Rules should not be applied in that part as contradicting to the law.”

December 2012

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.