ACF: Requesting Public Information Is Not Pressure on Institutions

In connection with media publications suggesting that the Anti-Corruption Fund Foundation (ACF) has exerted “institutional pressure” on the Ministry of Interior and other institutions, we would like to state the following:

In August 2024, the ACF sent requests for access to public information to the Minister of the Interior, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria, and the Anti-Corruption Commission, inquiring about any reports filed and actions taken in connection with the activities of a civic organisation, the National Agency for Control of Protected Areas” (NACPA), and its members.

Submitting requests for access to public information is something we do routinely as part of our work on civic oversight of institutions. In many cases, this mechanism is the only viable way for the public to obtain information about key decisions of public interest, made by the institutions, that would have otherwise remained hidden.

Submitting requests for access to information is an expression of the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizens to seek, receive, and disseminate information. Seeking access to public information can certainly not be described as a form of exerting pressure on institutions. Least of all can it be described as institutional pressure, given that the Anti-Corruption Fund is not a public institution but a civil society organisation.

The Access to Public Information Act provides the institutional recipients of requests for information with the opportunity of assessing, within the framework of the law, whether to grant access to the sought information or not. The fact of the matter is that we often have to file multiple requests, formulate the inquiries in a manner that increases the chance of receiving a substantive response from the competent authorities, and repeatedly follow up on the filed requests. In some cases, where we believe that the refusal to grant the requested information is unlawful, we resort to litigation.

In a democratic society, public institutions should be subject to democratic control and accountability. This is the case because the very existence of legal powers creates the risk that these powers could be abused. Such abuse could be exerted in the form of institutional pressure on citizens and civil society organisations. The right to access to public information is one of the mechanisms for institutional accountability.

In the case concerning NACPA, the decision to submit a request for public information was motivated by our desire to verify  information we had received about institutional pressure on a civil society organisation. The responses provided by the competent authorities were brief. Both the Ministry of Interior and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria determined that the information sought by ACF was public, providing us with the following information:

In a decision dated September 4, 2024, the Ministry of Interior stated that “after checking the Ministry’s databases for reports, complaints, etc., concerning in any way the association, National Agency for Control of Protected Areas, a report was found from the Minister of Environment and Water addressed to the Minister of Interior… an identical report was also submitted to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office.” The report was investigated by the General Directorate of the National Police and case No. 20892/2022 was opened by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office.

In a decision dated 10 September 2024, the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office stated that the report received from the Minister of the Environment concerned a framework agreement for cooperation between NACPA and the Ministry of the Environment and Water. Case No. 20892/2022 was opened by the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, and on March 8, 2023, a pre-trial investigation was initiated. This investigation is pending.

In a letter dated 2 September 2024, the Anti-Corruption Commission refused to provide the requested information on the grounds that it was not public domain.

Yesterday, a report was published by the Inspectorate Directorate of the Ministry of Interior in connection with the investigation into the Petrohan murder case. This report raises even more questions about this case which has greatly affected the Bulgarian public.

It shows that at the time of submitting its response to the ACF, the Ministry of Interior had already received a number of reports related to the activities of NACPA and its members. There had also been institutional actions taken, which were then not mentioned in the official response provided to ACF.

The document also reveals several weaknesses in the manner in which the concerned public institutions had investigated the reports they had received.

The difference between what is stated in yesterday’s report and the response to ACF from August 2024 shows that it is unrealistic to speak of any pressure exerted by ACF on the Ministry of Interior, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Anti-Corruption Commission. On the contrary, despite our requests, we had not been provided with complete and accurate information, and the actions of the concerned institutions, in this case, raise many questions requiring thorough answers.

Due to the high level of public interest, ACF is publishing the requests for public information filed back in 2024 and the responses that we received by the concerned institutions then.