In early September 2011, Ivan Atanasov (a journalist from Sakar News) submitted a request under the APIA to the mayor of Harmanli, requesting access to the audit report and the conclusion of an inspection done by the Public Financial Inspection Agency (PFIA) in the Harmanli Municipality.

By a decision of 14 September 2011, the mayor denied access to the requested information. The refusal stated that the audit report should be requested from the PFIA, as it is the institution, creator of the information. He laid down the argument that the information falls within the exemption under Art. 13, Para. 2, item 2, which is applicable to the information containing opinions and positions regarding ongoing or prospective negotiations led by the authority or on its behalf, as well as information relating to those and which was prepared by the respective authorities administrations.

The explicit refusal was challenged before the Administrative Court - Haskovo (ACH).

By Decision no. 17 of 30 January 2012, the ACH repealed the refusal of the mayor and returned the case for reconsideration. The court held that the unclear, vague and contradictory motives of the mayor's refusal amount to a lack of reasoning. Furthermore, the audit report obviously does not contain opinions and positions regarding negotiations led by the authority, nor is it prepared by its administration. Finally, the court noted that the allegations that the applicant may request that information from the PFIA, since the document was issued by the Agency are unfounded, because even if the report was created by another authority, the Harmanli Municipality has the report at its disposal.

The ACH decision was challenged by the mayor of Harmanli before the SAC.

By Decision no. 1364 of 29 January 2013, the SAC upheld the first instance decision repealing the refusal. The Justices held that the mayor's attempt to “complete” the contested decision by the statement of reasons in the cassation appeal is inadmissible. In order for the court to carry out an effective judicial review of its legality, the act should contain extensive reasoning including the specific factual and legal grounds which led the authority to issue it. On the issue of the illegality of the contested mayor’s decision, the SAC shares completely the reasoning of the ACH and did not consider necessary to reiterate it.

The decision is final.