The Borino Municipal Council approved €2,900 in one-off financial assistance for 12 people, but published their full names together with detailed information about surgeries, medical expenses, deaths and family relationships. After the municipality disclosed citizens’ national identification numbers and home addresses a month earlier, the latest case suggests a persistent disregard for the protection of personal data.
From surgery to cost – everything is in the minutes
At its meeting on 15 July, the Municipal Council considered applications for one-off financial assistance.
Instead of limiting the minutes to the legal grounds, the number of beneficiaries and the amounts granted, the document published the applicants’ full names and specific details about their health and family lives.
The minutes state that two people had undergone knee replacement surgery, including the costs of the procedures – €2,954 and €1,926.55 respectively.
Another resident had undergone spinal surgery and paid €869.20.
One woman is identified as having received an intraocular lens costing €527, while another applicant is described as needing money for medical supplies following lung surgery.
Family tragedies were also made public.
Five people received assistance with funeral expenses. The minutes disclose not only their names but also the names of the deceased and the family relationships involved – husband, son, brother or neighbour.
Among those approved was the mayor of Yagodina, but the minutes do not even specify his relationship to the deceased person.
Another applicant was granted €200 for the day-to-day needs of his grandchildren. The children’s names were also published.
First came the ID numbers, now the diagnoses
This is not the first such case.
In a previous report, “Borino Municipality publishes citizens’ full ID numbers and addresses”, we showed that documents for the 17 June council meeting disclosed the full national identification numbers and home addresses of three people and uploaded them to the municipality’s website.
A month later, the same institutional habit appears to have continued.
Then it was ID numbers and addresses.
Now it is surgeries, prices of medical devices, deaths and the names of relatives.
This suggests that Borino lacks even a basic and effective procedure for protecting citizens’ personal data.
The municipality’s ordinance requires applicants to provide consent for the processing of personal data, together with documents proving medical, social or other circumstances. This allows the administration and the relevant committee to assess applications.
It does not automatically mean that applicants have consented to their diagnoses and family tragedies being published online.
Health information is particularly sensitive.
The principle of data minimisation requires only the information genuinely necessary for the relevant purpose to be disclosed.
It is difficult to explain why public accountability requires citizens to know who underwent surgery, what procedure they had, how much they paid and whom they buried.
One woman was rejected under a rule that does not exist
The most telling moment came with the application of a woman from Yagodina.
She had requested €300 following hip replacement surgery that had cost €2,591.
Her application was submitted together with two other late applications.
During the meeting, councillor Asen Kukundzhiev said that applications from villages should first go through the respective mayors “so that a more accurate assessment of the applicants’ status” could be made.
The woman was then removed from the list.
There is no such requirement in the municipality’s ordinance.
Under its rules, applications are submitted to the mayor of Borino Municipality, either in person at the municipal administration or by post.
There is no provision requiring prior approval by the mayor of the applicant’s village.
Thus, a condition not contained in the ordinance appeared verbally during the meeting and immediately produced a consequence for a specific applicant.
Even more difficult to explain is the fact that two other applications submitted later were accepted.
Where is the committee?
The municipal ordinance provides for a seven-member committee to consider each application, check the supporting documents, determine the amount of assistance and adopt a positive decision by a two-thirds majority.
The minutes, however, merely state that three applications were submitted “subsequently”.
It is unclear whether they were reviewed by the committee, whether a separate record was drawn up, what checks were carried out, or why two were approved while the third was rejected.
Instead of a clear administrative procedure, Borino appears to have relied on improvisation during the council meeting.
For some applicants, the existing rules were considered sufficient.
For another, a new requirement was introduced on the spot.
Social assistance is not a service that citizens should have to pay for by making their illness or personal tragedy public.
The municipality has the right to require evidence.
It also has an obligation to protect it.
