Access to Information Programme | Court cases - Report about Bulgarian citizens and companies who were involved in oil trade with Iraqi companies or their representatives during the Saddam regime

Procurement of two steel plated cars for the Ministry of Interior

William Popov vs. the Minister of Interior

First Instance – administrative case No. 9349/2006, SAC, Fifth Division
Second Instance (appeal against ruling) – administrative case number No. 12432/2006, SAC, Five-member panel, Pannel II
First Instance (renewed) – administrative case No. 9349/2006 in SAC, fifth division

Request:
On August 14, 2006, William Popov, chairman of the Steering Committee (SC) of Civil Club Competency and Moral submitted a request to the Minister of Interior asking for information about the procurement of two steel plated cars for the Ministry of Interior (MoI) in a mode of concretely defined questions.

Refusal:
Within the legally prescribed period of 14 days he did not receive an answer to the submitted request.

Complaint:
A complained was submitted to the SAC. The complaint stated that the silent refusal of the minister of interior not only breached the individual right of access to public information of the requestor, but also the right of the citizens connected with the work of the organization which Mr. Popov represented. Procurement issues, including procurement of special cars, by the bodies of interior on the expense of public resourses (state budget) was of particular significance to the society. Clarifying those issues would help to form one’s own opinion with regard to the activity of the respective institution, the Ministry of Interior in the particular case, and would give the opportunity of finding the answer to the question: “Is that activity performed with the purpose of satisfying the public interest?”

Developments at the Court of First Instance:
During the court hearing that took place on November 27, 2006, the representatives of the MoI claimed that the complaint against the silent refusal had been filed two days after the legally prescribed period, thus the case should be terminated. With a ruling, the court panel decided to leave the complaint without consideration and terminated the case despite of the fact that the postal notification stating that the complaint was sent during the last day of the term was provided as evidence.

Appeal Against the Ruling:
The ruling by which the case was terminated was appealed before a Five-member panel.

Ruling:
With a ruling No. 178 as of January 8, 2007, a five-member panel of the SAC repealed the ruling for termination of the case delived by the lower instance court and turned the case back for continuation of proceedings. The magistrates assumed that the conclusions of the three-member panel were contradicting the evidences of the case and thus the judgement was incorrect.

Developments in the Court of First Instance (renewed):
The case was heard at an open court session on February 12, 2007. The representatives of the MoI pleaded for the termination of court proceedings due to inadmissibility of the complaint. They stated that the APIA did not provide for challenging silent refusals of obliged bodies, but only for the decisions by which the provision of access to public information was refused. The court panel left the request of the Minister of Interior for the termination of court proceedings due to inadmissibility of the complaint without consideration. The judges assumed that pursuant to Art. 40, Para. 1 of the APIA, the decisions on both granting and refusing access to information were to be challenged before the court. Silent refusal shall be regarded as a negative decision of the obliged body on a request, which made its complaint admissible. The case was scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:
With a decision No. 1753 as of February 20, 2007, a panel of the SAC, Third Division, repealed the silent refusal of the minister and returned the request back to him for reconsideration. In their judgment, the magistrates stated that the silent refusal represented inaction of the administration in cases when the administrative body had the obligation to issue a decision with regard to a submitted request. In the given case, the Minister of Interior had not issued a decision with regard to a request submitted by the complainant to get access to information on the procurement of two steel plated cars despite of the fact that the decision should have been issued within 14 days after the request was submitted (Art. 28, Para 1 of the APIA) notifying the requestor in writing whether the requested information was granted or denied (Art. 28, Para 2 of the APIA). Silent refusal indicated such inaction of the administrative body awich was infrindgement to the law.