"I Order It to be Implemented Within a Period of 250 Days…”

This is the response received by the Association “Intimate With the Nature Society” after an access to information request to the Mayor of Kuystendil

Stephan Anguelov

Intimate with the Nature Society
www.iwns.org

Established in 2001, “Intimate with the Nature” works for inspiring people to respect and care responsibly about animals and nature. It advocates for better legislation in that area and exercises civil monitoring on its implementation. The main activities of the association include lobbying for legislation, raising awareness and educational campaigns, assistance for and rehoming of stray animals, civil control over the humane treatment of animals and environmental protection; free legal consultations on issues related to humane treatment of animals.
“Intimate with the Nature” is proud of its participation in the drafting of the Law on Animal Protection and its role in the adoption of amendments to the Penal Code, criminalizing the murder of animals.
The association has been cooperating with a number of local and foreign organization, collaborating with public officials for increasing their capacity to respect and implement national and European legislation by following existing good models and practices.

The activities of the Association “Intimate with the Nature Society” are aiming to establish a humane attitude towards the animals. Their attention to the local stray dog shelter was drawn by documents “showing striking wrongdoings.” One person is known to perform the function of a manager of the shelter. At the same time, that person appears as an independent third party from a nongovernmental organization in the documents evidencing the number of euthanasia performed in the shelter. The apparent conflict of interests is concealed by the fact that the stray dogs shelter of the Municipality of Kyustendil, located in the village of Radlovtsi, is not an independent legal person, but is a part of the administration of the municipality. The person, known as and signing as the manager of the shelter has the position of a chief specialist in the local authority, which is different from “manager.” That is why the Commission for Prevention and Assertion of Conflict of Interest refuses to take and review the case. The association claims that this is a way to “go around the Animal Protection Act and to get into a conflict of interests which allows unlawful and arbitrary euthanasia, uncontrolled by the nongovernmental sector.”

With the purpose to clear up who the manager of the shelter is and who holds the responsibility of the actions taken within it, in July 2015, the association filed an access to information request to the Mayor of Kyustedil. They wanted to know who was the appointed person at the position “manager” of the shelter and who had held that position before, as well as what the functions of the “chief specialist” at the municipality include.

With a decision as of July 23, 2015, the mayor decided that the access to the requested public information was free and ordered the same chief specialist to provide it to the association with a timeframe of 250 days. The legal grounds for that timeframe were not pointed out in the decision. The meaning of the timeframe was not clear either.

With the assistance of the AIP, the association sent a request for complementing the decision of the mayor. In the response as of September 16, 2015, he pointed out that the timeframe was determined in purview of Art. 34, Para. 4 of the APIA, which stipulates that the timeframe within which access could be granted may not be less than 30 days as of receipt of the decision “and does not stipulate the maximum length of the timeframe.”

Several days after the receipt of the response, the people in the association, as well as the AIP team, were happy about the unprecedented practice of openness demonstrated by the Mayor of Kyustendil. His response means that the requestors can chose any of the 250 days after the receipt of the decision to get the documents. However, several days later, when representatives of the association tried to obtain the information, the “manager of the shelter – chief specialist” refused to provide it.

The grotesque side of the mayor’s decision thus showed up. It turned out that it is a refusal to provide the information. Apparently, its author had considered unnecessary to fulfill the legal requirements for grounding the refusal. They had shown “creative thinking” and had tried to mislead and mock at the requestors determining such a long time period.

The association appealed the factual refusal with the help of the AIP.

In the spirit of the “creative thinking” of the author of the decision, we may assume that he himself is not to blame for non-execution of his own decision. In such a case, it turns out that the “manager of the shelter – chief specialist” who is subordinate to the mayor, disobeyed his written order. Such an action is subject to disciplinary punishment. What if he should impose the disciplinary sanction by himself …. within the period of 250 days?

December 2015

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.