We now have a relapse in the activity of the SAC under
cover of organized crime in Bulgaria, at the highest level, and in
particular the nuclear mafia. The beginning was laid with Decision № 5621 of the SAC from 20 April 2011 p o case under the Access to Public Information . then YOU gave us a document later called Proof № Last and revealing the criminal nature of the replacement of nuclear fuel plant. the main argument of the panel was "no overriding public interest." And what was in practice. When a few months later, however, refused by the Supreme document and published it here in the article № Last Evidence is now available! , blog exploded, literally. Over the next 24 hours my blog was visited more than 3000 times, and the material itself over 1500 times. To this day this article is read, with more than 5,000 visits to continue. But that's not all. Denied then the document you were published in several online publications and www.Eurochicago.com , www.Bivol.bg and others that the total number of reads exceeds my very 20,000! And what do you think is "no overriding interest"? Well, why not.
Now the situation is exactly the same. Again it comes to the application of a document property MEET, under the Access to Public Information Act (APIA). This document has been made available to us, but only
partially, because the number over 70 fields in it were deleted before
we be betrayed. Now you want removed fields to recover and we can see the document in its full entirety. It is a report prepared by order and then Energy Minister Petar Dimitrov. Here's the first half and Sites Here in this report.
What is interesting and why it causes our interest, while YAM mobilize to defend it tooth and nail? The answer is more than interesting. It is precisely this document by reference to each other, made less than a month after, etc. " Protocol Swedish checking the fuel. "shows that in this period (August-September 2008) of the
territory of NPP" Kozloduy "have vanished for six pieces nuclear fuel
assemblies, making three tons of nuclear material! In the Report to the Minister (see above) the number of cartridges is 96 and mentioned goals twice. A " Protocol Swedish checking the fuel. "number is 90. This is not noticed by the referee be made up!! Derboliyka?
Before we submit that report, under the law, YAM
representatives have worked hard to wipe out more than 70 boxes of it,
but also because as their brains are not appropriate to delete the
existing number, during the inspection, fuel assemblies. After a while, the Swedish report and scour the truth! Now YAM trembling with rage and will do anything sasmo and
just did not provide the entire report because it does not know what
will come under the deleted fields. Who knows what else they have committed crimes to erase traces of the largest - the use of recycled nuclear fuel. But let them know that it is impossible to hide. It is likely to soon question Report to appear and be posted here as it happened to Proof № Last . Then I will talk about what is "overriding public interest" company, and any other technological secrets.
For now, to keep my record would put here just another criminal suits Chamber judgment of the Supreme. Happy reading!
GK
DECISION
№ 8253
Sofia, 11.06.2012
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
№ 8253
Sofia, 11.06.2012
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
The Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria - Fifth Division, in a hearing on the ninth of May two thousand and twelve members:
CHAIRMAN:
|
ANDREI IKONOMOV
| |||
MEMBERS:
|
Marieta MILEVA
Emanoil MITEV | |||
Secretary for
|
Iliana Ivanova
|
and featuring
| ||
the prosecutor
|
Parvoleta Nikova
|
reported hearing
| ||
the President
|
ANDREI IKONOMOV
|  | ||
on adm. case № 3127/2011.
 | ||||
Production is under Art. 208 and following of the Administrative Procedure Code (APC) in conjunction with Art. 40 of the Law on Access to Public Information Act (APIA). It was formed on the appeal of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism (MEET) and the NPP "Kozloduy", Kozloduy (NPP), against the decision № 109/10.01.2011, delivered in a.d . № 2889/2010 on the inventory of the Administrative Court Sofia City (ACSC).
Cassation appeal is filed within opustimi and procedural.
With the composition of the contested decision annulled ACSC as unlawful item 2 of the Order № RD-16-316/23.03.2010 by the Chief Secretary on an appeal by MEET National Movement "Ecoglasnost" (Ecoglasnost) and remitted the case to the administrative authority for reconsideration within 14 days of receipt 'and according to the instructions of the court in interpreting and applying the law.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Secretary of the NPP MEET and challenging it. Consider this to be incorrect because the court admitted breaches of the law and unreasonableness. Please cancel it and ordered another, on the merits, which dismissed the original complaint against Ecoglasnost order of the Secretary.
The defendant - Ecoglasnost through procedural representative considers unfounded complaints and requests leave in force the decision of the ACSC.
The prosecutor gives an opinion of the merits of cassation.
The Supreme Administrative Court, a panel of the Fifth Division (SAC) to rule on the dispute perceived facts, found by the ACSC. It is not disputed by kasatorite. The subject of their complaints are the legal conclusions of the court.
As the findings of fact should be added that ACSC held that "... the report (№ 12-00-743/15.08.2008), the partially surrendered, was prepared by the company (ie should be understood from NPP) "- page 2 ABI. to last in the contested decision. This finding of fact is baseless. The report shows the header part, was prepared by a working committee appointed by the Minister of Economy and Energy (Minister / is seen) № E-RD-23-290/05.08.2008, and chaired by the director of "Security of energy supply "in the ministry.
With proper factual context, the cassation complaint is justified.
SAC believes that in this case the evidence leads to the conclusion that the information contained in the deleted parts of the report № 12-00-743/15.08.2008 was not a public one under the APIA. Given the content of the report № 12-00-743/15.08.2008, should assume that the deleted parts contain data and information related to production activity and sales contracts and OAO NPP "TVЭL" not public information within the meaning of Art. 2 of the Act. The latter defines as "any information relating to the public life of the country and enabling citizens to form their own opinion about the activities of the obligations under this act." The purpose of APIA is to provide broad public awareness and access to information that is created and stored by public bodies, local authorities and public bodies (Article 3 of the APIA) in connection with their work, while allowing applicant to form an opinion about the conduct of their business or in the case of the work of the Minister and the Ministry of Economy. It is against that framework, access to information under this Act may be used either for inspecting and checking the activities of the responsible entities, nor to collect technical, production and trade data on the activities of individual economic edenitsi. This implies that the data contained in the report № 12-00-743/15.08.2008, the access to which is limited, do not fall within the scope of information that constitute public information concerning the conduct of the Minister and MEET activities concerning nuclear Energy of the country, and the information is sought for purposes not covered by the scope of the APIA.
Apart from the above, YOU realized that to reverse the partial failure of the Secretary ACSC held that there is "overriding public interest" (NOI) within the meaning of § 1, item 6 of the Supplementary Provisions (AP) APIA, as by using the information is aimed at increasing the transparency and accountability of the subjects of art. 3. The Court has made connection with § 1, item 5 of the AP of the same law in holding that in the case NOI is presumed until proven otherwise, in order that the prerequisites for b. "A" and "e" - there is an ongoing debate regarding the safety of the plant operation and refuting any disseminated incorrect information concerning important public interests such as health and life of Bulgarian citizens.
SAC, the examination of the evidence in the case stated that the request for access to public information, the № 92-00-213/18.02.2010, requesting the copy of the report, there are no allegations Ecoglasnost presence of the Institute for exposing corruption and abuse of power, incl. enhance transparency and accountability of the subjects of art. 3 of the Act. Such a claim - the existence of the Institute is not exposed in the initial complaint to the ACSC. These two documents outline the boundaries of public information, the purpose for which it is sought and accordingly - the reasons for its receipt in full or part-time capacity. The question is also relevant to the burden of proof. In this case, the existence of the Institute, the burden of proof is the duty acc. art. 170, para. 2 of APC on Ecoglasnost, but which had not done anything and has not demonstrated the existence of such.
The legal definition of "NOI," as stated ACSC is given in § 1, item 6 of the AP of APIA. Public information from Ecoglasnost should be linked to the work of the debtor within the meaning of Art. 3 of the APIA to achieve the unique delivery incl. in the case of the Institute. In case, however, remained unappreciated fact that the information is requested by the Minister of Economy, Energy and Tourism, and such concerns limited nuclear relations with its manufacturing and trading partner OAO "TVЭL." The provision of information is not generally refused and the application has been granted for the most part with his command of the Secretary of the Ministry of Economy. In examining whether there is a general NII (within the meaning of § 1, item 6) and / or its existence must be assumed by the statutory presumption of § 1, item 5, sentence. 2 due to the existence of the reasons mentioned in § 1, item 5 of the AP of APIA (just in case those letters from "a" to "f"), the court was required to comply only the nature of the information to which access is was limited, not all requested such an application, the registration № 92-00-213/18.02.2010
Comparing the two copies of the report № 12-00-743/15.08.2008 presented in court, the SAC discovered that the data to which access is partially denied by the Secretary, concerning the number of contracts, annexes and protocols between NPP and OAO "TVEL "number of acts for the treatment, the numbers of fuel assemblies, the same number of loading and replacement reactor, the values of concentration of boric acid in the coolant for the 5th and 6th block and duration of fuel campaigns. All these data are purely technical and commercial operations, and concern only the relationship between NPP and OAO "TVEL". Of them in any way Ecoglasnost could not make conclusions about "exposing corruption and abuse of power, increasing transparency and accountability for the work of the Minister as body art. 3 of the APIA," ie nature of the information to which access is limited, not available on the NII shows the meaning of § 1, item 6 of the Additional APIA.
You feel you are not there and the conditions set out in § 1, 5, b. "A" and "e" of the AP of APIA and therefore can not be considered presumptive existence of the Institute of becoming aware of the data to which access is limited. The existence of an ongoing discussion in the Republic of Bulgaria on the safety operation of nuclear power is undeniable. Is unquestionable necessity of refuting disseminated incorrect information concerning important public interests. The results of the discussion, however, can be filled with a rich potential for providing the general public, including. the applicant Ecoglasnost on those sales and technical data to which access is limited. Through them could not refute and "spread false information involving significant public interest." Given the nature of the discussion - "broad public" that is essential to its effectiveness and tackling incorrect information is to be determined by demand and provides public information on whether there are variations in the levels of radiation by releasing radiation into the environment of the plant above the established national and global standards and / or use of nuclear fuel that is certified (ie recycled uranium). These answers can be searched and found in commercial and technical deleted data from the report, so you feel you can not accept the presumptive presence of NSSI on them. What's more - these questions have already been answered (and undoubtedly reached Ecoglasnost) in the case presented by the same association "Notice to Members" № 2004/15.05.2009, prepared by the Committee on Petitions (l 101 case). Seen by him (p. 2), "the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Authority has used an independent contractor (Swedish company" Studsvik Nuklear AB "), who confirmed that the amount of the isotope U 232 (an indicator of the presence of recycled uranium) is the certificate (ie no evidence of recycled uranium). was not even used recycled uranium U 232 (this is the practice in some nuclear power plants), it would have no direct impact on the safety of these reactors ". In the same vein is the Commission's response given on page 3, section "Findings": "The scope of the European Commission under the Euratom Treaty is limited to cases where there is a release of radiation into the environment or use of nuclear materials such notification. Commission has no information about any such release by the competent Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Authority, or the very NPP "Kozloduy". therefore no reason to conduct a verification mission in accordance with Art. 35 of the Euratom Treaty. Euratom inspections Nuclear Safety also gave no indication of diversion of nuclear material from NPP "Kozloduy" for undisclosed use. "
In the absence of an existing NOI (under the terms of § 1, 6 and 5 of ETC APIA), ACSC was to explore and answer the question whether there were conditions of Art. 37 of the APIA refusal of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Economy to provide fully claimed by Ecoglasnost public information.
It is clear from the text of the appealed order № RD-16-316/23.03.2010, the existing waiver for the Executive Director of the NPP, it refers to art. 37, para. 1, item 1, 2, etc. and art. 37, para. 1, item 2. Reasons in connection with the findings of the court whether or not the grounds for the application of Art. 37, para. 1, item 1, 2 APIA etc. are not exposed in the contested decision adopted by the court because existing NOI. SAC believes that in this case there are grounds for so specified by the Secretary partial refusal of information. As witnessed by the case of a sample (7.1.) Of Contract № 100/45046040/080514 between OAO "TVЭL", Moscow, Russia and NPP "Kozloduy", Bulgaria (l 61, 74) and the letter o. № 1111/05.03.2010 on the NPP to the Minister, limiting access to information is possible, given the agreed and included in the contract an express confidentiality clause, and the lack of consent of the NPP to provide `i In this case it is a protected by law "production and trade secrets" within the meaning of § 1, item 9 of the Additional Act on Protection of Competition.
These are the conditions for refusal to provide full access under Art. 37, para. 1, item 2. Evident from the enclosed letter from 09.08.2010 № 08-05/10040 on (l 118, 120) of OAO "TVЭL" to NPP stated disagreement of this company is to be provided under the APIA. Such is the opinion of the NPP and expressed in his letter cited ref. № 1111/05.03.2010 until the Minister. OAO "TVЭL" and nuclear is a third party within the meaning of Art. 37, para. 1, item 2, their manufacturing and commercial interests will be affected by the granting of the requested information fully and indicate they have expressed their explicit written dissent to provide `i При липсата на съгласие за предоставяне на доклада от страна на третите лица ОАО "ТВЭЛ" и АЕЦ (чиито интереси са засегнати), законосъобразно и правилно органът е отказал да предостави информацията изцяло. Актът на главния секретар на МИЕТ в този смисъл е съобразен и с нормата на чл. 31, ал. 4 от ЗДОИ, която дава възможност на органа при изрично несъгласие на третите лица за това, да предостави исканата обществена информация в обем и по начин, който не разкрива сведения за третото лице. В случая правилно е прието, че такъв частичен достъп е възможен, поради което докладът е предоставен след заличаване на частите от него, които касаят търговска и производствена тайни на АЕЦ и ОАО "ТВЭЛ".
Предвид изложеното, настоящият съдебен състав на ВАС приема, че решението на АССГ се явява незаконосъобразно. Като такова то следва да се отмени, като се постанови друго, по съществото на спора и се отхвърли жалбата на Екогласност против обжалваната заповед на главния секретар на МИЕТ.
По делото е направено искане от процесуалния представител на АЕЦ за присъждане на юрисконсултско възнаграждение. С оглед изложените фактически и правни доводи в настоящото решение, то се явява основателно. Pursuant to Art. 143 от АПК във вр. с чл. 8 и чл. 7, ал. 1, т. 4 от Наредба № 1/2004 г. на Висшия адвокатски съвет, следва да бъде осъдено Екогласност да заплати на АЕЦ сумата 150,00 лева.
По изложените съображения и на основание чл. 221, ал. 2 от АПК, ВАС
РЕШИ:
ОТМЕНЯ решение № 109/10.01.2011 г., постановено по а.д. № 2889/2010 г. по описа на Административен съд София-град и вместо него постановява:
ОТХВЪРЛЯ жалбата на Национално движение "Екогласност", със седалище и адрес на управление гр. София, бул. Княз Дондуков № 9, против т. 2 от заповед № РД-16-316/23.03.2010 г. на главния секретар на Министерство на икономиката, енергетиката и туризма.
ОСЪЖДА Национално движение "Екогласност", със седалище и адрес на управление гр. София, бул. Княз Дондуков № 9, ЕФН 2191287639, да заплати на АЕЦ "Козлодуй" ЕАД, гр. Козлодуй, сумата 150,00 (сто и петдесет) лева разноски по делото.
Решението е окончателно.
No comments:
Post a Comment