The mayor of Silistra issued a refusal under the Access to Public Information Act regarding a request for a copy of the donation agreement between restaurateur Milen Deliyski and the municipality.
This indicates that the practice of institutional interactions within the territory of Silistra Municipality with anonymous donors, which is not in the interest of citizens, is being meticulously preserved. This was demonstrated in the mayor’s response to an inquiry made under the Access to Public Information Act concerning the transfer of ownership of the “Business Incubator” building (or “The New Bath”) to local businessman Milen Deliyski.
With this donation, Deliyski transferred 17.5 square meters of the part he owns in the “Business Incubator” building, before requesting to acquire 33 times more space from the building and initiating a procedure to terminate the co-ownership, which concluded with a decision from the municipal council.
Following signals from municipal councilors and citizens to the prosecutor’s office and the regional governor, the controversial decision of the local governing body to provide a significant portion of the iconic building in this manner was challenged in the Administrative Court of Silistra. This led to the opening of an administrative case, in which two hearings have been held to date, with a third scheduled for March 2, 2021. It was during this administrative judicial process that it became known that Deliyski had made a donation of 17.5 square meters to the municipality before making a request to terminate the co-ownership, thereby
obtaining approximately 500 square meters of space as a preferential buyer in the deal.
According to the prosecutor’s office, the donation in question was made to circumvent the law, thereby enabling the subsequent unlawful acquisition of 33 times more space from the building, which undermines the public interest.
However, the procedural representatives of the municipality and the defenders of Milen Deliyski argue that the donation was made to ensure the municipality’s access to the roof of the building. This statement implies that Mr. Deliyski had previously known or anticipated, even before the procedure was initiated at his request to terminate the co-ownership and purchase the remainder of the building, that the municipality would need access to the roof.
It is reasonable to assume that the municipality’s need for roof access, which necessitated the donation of 17.5 square meters, could only have become apparent after the initiation of the procedure, rather than beforehand. In this case, either Milen Deliyski was exceptionally foresightful in realizing the need for such a donation to secure the municipality’s access to the roof, or officials from the municipality communicated with him in advance and advised him on what to do to ensure
that the procedure went smoothly.
According to the statement made by the representative of the District Prosecutor’s Office, recorded in the minutes from the latest session, the transaction involving the donation that established co-ownership between the interested party and the defendant—“DMS” Ltd. and the Municipality of Silistra, dated May 13, 2021, is null and void and, as such, has not produced the intended legal effects. “It is precisely with the donation of these 17.5 square meters of ideal parts that the aim was to obtain approximately 480 square meters from the defendant in this case, thereby circumventing the legal requirement for the sale to be conducted on a general basis through a tender or competition,” the prosecutor stated in the case.
From the statements made by the prosecutor in the case, it is also clear that there exists a Donation Agreement. This document was requested by “Za istinata” under the Access to Information Act, but the mayor denied the request. This could have confirmed one of the facts presented in the case, namely that the donation took place on May 13, 2021.
In addition to a copy of the Donation Agreement, we also requested the entire correspondence related to the procedure that led to the contested decision of the municipal council. In response, the mayor of Silistra
provided two protocols and one application.
These three documents indirectly confirm suspicions that municipal officials assisted Milen Deliyski, and that this was done against the public interest.
One of the documents provided by the mayor in response to the request under the Access to Information Act is Mr. Deliyski’s application, which initiates the procedure. The application is dated May 18—five days after the signing of the Donation Agreement, through which Deliyski had already transferred 17.5 square meters of his portion of the New Bath building to the municipality. In this application, he requests the mayor to terminate the co-ownership and to purchase the municipality’s share.
In light of these facts, it becomes clear that prior to the initiation of the procedure through the application, there was already some relationship between the municipality and Milen Deliyski, concerning the civil-law transaction—the Donation Agreement dated May 13, which preceded the submission of this application by five days and triggered an administrative procedure for division. This raises the questions: What was the purpose of this donation? Was it to secure the municipality’s access to the roof after the transfer of ownership, as claimed by Deliyski’s defenders? But how did Milen Deliyski know about the need for roof access in order to make the 17.5 square meter donation unless he was previously informed by the municipality in his interest? Is it normal practice for any citizen to be so well informed before starting a procedure for issuing an administrative act upon their request?
Or are such exceptions made only for special donors?
The aforementioned application was reviewed in two meetings of a municipal commission, where it was approved. This is evident from the two meeting minutes provided by the mayor—the first dated May 19, 2021, and the second dated June 7, 2021. The purpose of the donation made on May 13 should have been addressed in these two minutes, yet it is not even mentioned. It is in these meetings, following the application submitted on May 18, 2021, that the need for transferring the small portion of 17.5 square meters should have become clear, in order to secure access for the municipality to the roof of the building, as alleged. In this context, the prosecutor’s office is seeking to ascertain the purpose of the donation.
Otherwise, the actions that preceded this suggest something else and raise suspicions of circumventing the law to the detriment of the public interest. Ultimately, during the meeting on June 7, 2021, the commission ruled for the “Municipal Property” department to prepare a report for the preferential sale of the municipality’s co-ownership share to Milen Deliyski, following the procedure prescribed by the Property Act. Only if he refuses should the process proceed to an auction with sealed bids according to the Municipal Property Act, where anyone can participate.
With an announced price of 111,000 BGN, this should not pose a problem for the buyer, despite the fact that he himself has outstanding loans. The donation made to transfer a small portion to the municipality just days before the procedure was initiated is not mentioned in the two minutes from the commission meetings concerning the Municipal Property Act, but it is noted in the subsequently prepared Report No. 1348 from the “Municipal Property” department that 17.5 square meters from the third (installation) floor, located in the eastern part of the building, are owned by the municipality of Silistra. This fact should help uncover
the purpose of the donation.
It is precisely these 17.50 square meters that should have been the subject of the donation preceding the procedure, the agreement for which the mayor refuses to provide. This raises the question: if everything is in order and legal, and given the public interest, why does the mayor refuse to provide a copy of the requested contract? For the sake of transparency, this should be done.
The mayor justifies his decision to refuse to provide a copy of the contract by stating that the requested information lacks public character, which implies that the refusal does not require further justification. The municipal administration maintains that the sought information does not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Access to Information Act, which is why they also refuse to elaborate on the grounds for the refusal.
According to the municipality’s position, the donation agreements entered into between the donors and the municipality, in their entirety, do not possess a public character within the meaning of Article 2 of the Access to Information Act. The conclusion of donation agreements is not part of the functioning of the obligated subject—the municipality—and therefore does not constitute public information. Additionally, they state that “the donor’s right to remain anonymous is associated with moral principles and arguments related to their own beliefs about public benefit activities and the lack of necessity for disclosure.”
This position also reveals the municipality’s motive for the donation—it is presented as a highly moral gesture and part of the donor’s socially beneficial activities, for which citizens should be extremely grateful.
