The Administrative Court in Gabrovo has overturned Sevlievo Municipality’s refusal to disclose how many days its public relations officer was physically present at work. According to the court, the administration wrongly relied on personal data protection and failed to consider the existence of an overriding public interest.
The ruling was issued on 20 July following an appeal by a “Za Istinata” reporter against the municipality’s refusal to answer one of seven questions submitted under the Access to Public Information Act.
The information requested did not concern holidays, sick leave or specific dates of attendance, but only the number of days on which the employee had been present at work while carrying out duties under an employment relationship financed by the municipal budget, the court noted.
For the municipality, budget spending is personal data
The question was one of seven submitted under the Access to Public Information Act and was left unanswered because the municipal administration had taken the view that how, how much and for what purpose it spends money from the budget constitutes personal data.
The administration also sought the employee’s consent to release the information. After the employee refused, the municipality likewise denied access to the requested data.
The court rejected the municipality’s arguments, pointing out that the decision refusing the information contained no reasoning “from which it could be established how the requested information relates to the third party and what interests of that person would be affected by its disclosure”.
The overriding public interest was conveniently overlooked
The ruling also states that the employee’s lack of consent “is not an absolute obstacle, nor is it sufficient grounds for refusing” the information, because an overriding public interest exists.
Such an interest exists “when the information and data are related to improving the transparency and accountability of the bodies subject to the law with regard to the decisions they make, as well as ensuring the lawful and appropriate fulfilment of their obligations under the Access to Public Information Act”, the judges said.
Because Sevlievo Municipality failed to rebut the existence of an overriding public interest, the requested information should be disclosed, the court ruled.
The lack of reasoning for the refusal therefore rendered the decision unlawful.
The case has been returned to Sevlievo Municipality with instructions to consider the application of the Personal Data Protection Act, which the employee responsible for “Protocol and Public Relations” had invoked.
The court stressed that the information request did not seek specific attendance dates, holidays or sick-leave records, as the municipality had incorrectly assumed, but statistical information on the number of days the employee had attended work in 2025 and during the first three months of 2026.
The court also refused to award the costs requested by the municipality. As a result, the expenses for the legal representation remain the responsibility of the municipal budget.
The municipality was represented in the proceedings by a lawyer from the Sofia Bar Association.
Performing public-sector duties is public information
Information about how many days a public relations officer employed by a municipality has been present at work does not constitute protected personal data, because it concerns the performance of official duties rather than the individual’s private life.
This was the position put forward by “Za Istinata” before the court when challenging Sevlievo Municipality’s refusal to provide the information.
The information does not affect the employee’s legal sphere in a way that would justify seeking their consent, said lawyer Kiril Terziyski of the Access to Information Programme, whose support was provided in challenging the refusal.
“The requested information about the work performed by the public relations officer is related to the fulfilment of the duties of a municipal employee and in no way affects the privacy of their personal life,” the lawyer argued.
The court subsequently accepted this position in full.
Working in Sofia and Sevlievo at the same time
Two circumstances prompted interest in how the Sevlievo municipality PR officer was carrying out her duties.
At the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025, although the exact dates are not publicly available, the employee was working simultaneously for the municipality in Sevlievo and for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Sofia.
Sofia and Sevlievo are approximately 180 kilometres apart, raising questions about how the obligations under the two employment arrangements were actually organised.
The dual appointment came to light by chance. When Rosen Zhelyazkov’s government took office, the Council of Ministers’ press service distributed to the media a list of the names and telephone numbers of ministry PR officers.
Next to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was the name Anelia Skrimova.
The same name appeared next to “Protocol and Public Relations” on the Sevlievo Municipality website.
The surname is not particularly common, making a coincidence unlikely, although not impossible. “Za Istinata” therefore contacted Skrimova for comment at the time.
During a telephone conversation, Skrimova confirmed that she worked for then Agriculture Minister Georgi Tahov and said she did so under a civil contract, which in itself is not unlawful.
The existence of a second civil contract does not automatically constitute a legal violation. But with at least two and a half hours of driving between the two workplaces, the arrangement raised questions about how the duties under both contracts were actually performed.
Outsiders doing the job of the permanent PR officer
An answer of sorts emerged when outside people began appearing at public events in Sevlievo to film them, suggesting that the municipality’s PR duties had been transferred to someone else.
Skrimova’s name, however, remained listed as the official contact, and on the rare occasions when media outlets received responses, they often came through the Viber messaging application.
No one ever answered the only landline listed as a contact number at the municipality, because by that point nobody appeared to be working in the office.
Sevlievo Municipality confirmed to “Za Istinata” that Skrimova’s duties had been assigned to external contractors.
According to the municipality, between 1 January 2025 and 29 April 2026, €11,825 was spent on external services related to media coverage of events.
“The funds spent comply with the approved budget and the transparency requirements governing the use of public resources,” the municipality said.
This continued until early May this year, when both the position and Anelia Skrimova’s name suddenly disappeared from the municipal website.
Sevlievo Municipality currently has no public relations officer and no competition has been announced for a replacement.
Whether Skrimova continues to work as an external contractor, as she did before being appointed under an employment contract in early 2024, cannot be established.
Such speculation exists, but it remains speculation because the administration appears unwilling to confirm something that has become a closely guarded secret – one for which the municipality is willing to spend money on lawyers from Sofia.
This case is not really about personal data.
It is about how far citizens’ right to know extends when it comes to work paid for with public money, and where the obligation of public institutions to be transparent begins.
The court’s ruling is final.
