Two contracts for lobbying services signed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in relation to Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union

Alexenia Dimitrova (24 Hours Newspaper) vs. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

First Instance Court–administrative court case No. 4070/2006, Sofia City Court, Administrative Division, Panel III-A
Second Instance Court– administrative court case No. 12368/2007, Supreme Administrative Court, Third Division

Request:
In July 2006, Alexenia Dimitrova, a journalist from 24 Chasa (24 Hours) daily newspaper, submitted a request for access to information to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. She demanded access to information about two contracts for lobbying services signed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in relation to Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union. Dimitrova requested the title pages and the last two pages of the two contracts, in order to acquire information about the contracting parties, the dates the contracts were signed, the subject matter of the contracts and the persons who had signed them.

Refusal:
A letter from the interim head of the MFA administration informed Alexenia Dimitrova about the extension of the period for answering the request, since the information affected third parties’ interest, thus their consent had to be obtained for its disclosure. The letter did not specify the identity or the number of third parties. Access to the requested information was refused with an order as of August 18, 2006, on the grounds that no consent had been received by the third parties within the legally prescribed time frames.

Complaint:
The refusal was challenged before the Sofia City Court (SCC) with the argument that the information requested was public since it would help to form an opinion about the work of the MFA regarding the lobbying activities related to Bulgaria's accession to the European Union. Such activities were obviously public and of particular importance for the foreign policy of the country during the last several years. The complaint also pointed out that the refusal did not contain any factual grounds, such as information about who the third parties were who were asked for their consent or which data contained on the requested pages contained were regarded as secret. Thus, the refusal was ungrounded, lacking factual grounds and precise legal conclusions.

Developments in the Court of First Instance:
Proceedings were stayed for the collection of evidence. Further on, the case was viewed during one session in October 2007 and scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
In a decision as of August 8, 2007, the SCC rejected the complaint as groundless. In their judgment, justices stated that the subject of the contract was provision and implementation of lobbying services by third party. In the case the sides were equal, as the requested information regarded the rights and obligations which had emerged as a result of the signed contracts, including the terms of the contracts, amount of money paid to third parties, as well as the grounds for such payment. Thus, according to the court, the decision of the administrative body that the interests of the third party might have been affected and as stipulated by Art. 31 Para. 2 of the APIA had requested the consent of the third party, and following the dissent of the latter – refused to provide the requested information.

Court Appeal:
The decision of the SCC was appealed before the SAC. The appeal set forth that the decision of the SCC regarding the fact that undoubtedly public data such as the title of a trade association and of state bodies and their representatives were not to be provided to the society, contradicted the law. There were hardly any doubts that data contained on the front page and the last page of the contract requested by the journalist were of the above type. Those were reasonable expectations for the content of an ordinary contract. It was also emphasized that SCC had not considered that the implementation of the contract was paid out of the state budget. Thus third parties were obliged bodies in terms of the information regarding their activities which were funded out of the state budget.

Developments in the Court of Second Instance:
The case is to be heard at an open court session in June 2008.