We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Rosen Bosev (Capital Weekly) v. Director of the Government Information Service

Rosen Bosev (Capital Weekly) v. Director of the Government Information Service

last modified Aug 21, 2012 12:04 PM

Case number:
03528/2006
Country:
Bulgaria
Date of decision:
2 November 2007
Court / Arbiter:
Sofia City Court, reviewable by Supreme Administrative Court ( First instance )

Relevant law :

Decision:

When a member of the public requests access to an agreement between a government agency and a third party, the government agency is required to seek consent of the third party to disclose the information; mere assertion that disclosure would harm commercial interests does not suffice.


Keywords:
Commercial confidentiality (including financial/economic interests of private parties or public authorities)
Contracts / Agreements (use of public funds, negotiations)
Third parties

Case details:

Facts

Rosen Bosev, a journalist with Capital weekly requested information about the contract and its terms for the procurement of software licenses signed between the former Minister of State Administration and Microsoft amounting to more than 28 million USD. Administrative Reform and Government Information Service (GIS), the body addressed, refused to grant access asserting that the contract concerned trade secrets and that disclosure would result in unfair competition. Arguing violation of the Access to Public Information Act the journalist lodged a complaint before the Sofia City Court.

Decision

The Court returned the information request for reconsideration. It held that protection of commercial secrets and prevention of unfair competition are legitimate grounds for non-disclosure. However, it also found that according to Article 31(2) of the Access to Public Information Act the respective body should seek consent of the third party to disclose the information. GIS was under obligation to request Microsoft’s permission to release information, which it failed to do. The Court further held that in the event that Microsoft refused to disclose the contract and its terms, GIS would still be obliged to exercise its discretion and provide information in the form and extent that would not cause harm to the Company.

Note: As of September 2012, GIS had not provided the information.

Resources:

Judgment of the Court.

Summary of the case (in English).