First Instance Court – administrative case No. 4111/2009, ACSC, First Division, 2 panel

Second Instance Court – administrative case No. 3879/2010, SAC, Fifth Division

Request:

On April 30, 2009 Krum Blagov, journalist from Standard daily, filed a request for access to information to the chairperson of the Regional Court Sofia (RCS) to obtain access to the following information, related to jurors sitting in RCS:

• How many days during 2008 each of them has sat as juror in public hearings;

• What is the remuneration due for sitting as juror;

• Has a juror sat in more than one open court session the same day. If positive how many are these cases;

• How many and who are the jurors members to the Committee of Jurors within the RCS;

• How many meetings this Committee had held;

• Have internal rules on the work of jurors been adopted? Have rules of conduct of the jurors been adopted?

Refusal:

With a letter as of May 13, 2009 the Chair refused access on grounds that the requested information was statistical in its nature, and did not fall under the definition of public information stipulated by Art. 2, para. 1 of the APIA.

Complaint:

The refusal was challenged before the ACSC. The complaint stresses out that the refusal is unlawful as it conflicts with Art. 2, para. 1 of the APIA. The statistical information is not outside the scope of the law. Furthermore, it is obvious that significant part of the requested information is not statistical information.

Developments in the Court of First Instance:

The case was heard in an open court session in October 2009 and was scheduled for judgment.

Court Decision:

With a decision as of November 6, 2009 an ACSC panel upheld the chairman's decision in its part refusing access to information sought under the first three items of the request and repealed it in the part refusing access to information sought under items 4-6. According to the court the information sought under the first three items related to activities of rendering justice, therefore could not be accessed pursuant to the APIA. Only the Inspectorate within the Supreme Judicial Council and the Minister of Justice can require such information and only pursuant to the Judiciary Act. With regard to the information under items 4-6 the court considered that access to it would enable the requestor to make his own opinion on the administrative activities of the court and that this kind of information falls under the scope of the APIA.

Court appeal:

The first instance decision was appealed to the SAC by both parties. By the requestor – in its part which dismissed the complaint with regard to items 1-3, and by the chairman of the RCS in the part repealing its refusal with regard to items 4-6. An open hearing of the case is to be scheduled.

Court Decision:

In its Decision as of January 11, 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court, upheld the Decision of the First Instance Court delivered on November 6, 2009.