Typical Example of Withholding Public Information in Tbilisi City Hall

Nino Tsagareishvili

City Hall of Tbilisi represents one of the most reluctant governmental agencies to issue public information. According to Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), according to data of February 2th of 2012, Tbilisi City Hall, as a rule, avoids to issue public information.

“Responses of Tbilisi City Hall, as a rule, are similar and incomplete. Unfortunately, mostly, we are redirected to different sources i.e. they advise us to search for information on their website or address other organizations,” – IDFI states.

On June 24th of 2011, Human Rights Center addressed the official responsible for issuance of public information and requested to provide public information, particularly: 1) From April 1st till May 6th, specifically when and where Mayor of Tbilisi travelled on business leave and how much budget expenses were spent; 2) who accompanied the Mayor during the travel and how much budget expenses were spent.

Tbilisi City Hall did not respond to this letter. Therefore, Human Rights Center addressed Mayor of Tbilisi on December 20th of 2011 with an administrative complaint in accordance with article 178 of Administrative Code according to which administrative body which issues administrative-legal act hears and decides administrative complaint if there is an official who holds higher position or such a structural department.

Tbilisi City Hall responded to the letter in a following way: “Your request concerns issuance of public information protected in Tbilisi City Hall. Considering that this information is issued by Tbilisi City Hall, it is impossible to present the administrative complaint in the same department. Thus, you should address the Court.”

It should be noted that this letter does not indicate the concrete legal ground – concrete article of General Administrative Code which Tbilisi City Hall relied on.

In January of 2011, Human Rights Center filed complaint against the reply of City Hall to Board of Administrative Cases of Tbilisi City Court. Several days before the start of hearings, organization unexpectedly received one more letter of Tbilisi City Hall which indicated that as a response to letter of Human Rights Center sent on June 24th, Tbilisi City Hall sends the copy of decree #383 of the head of administration of City Hall issued on March 21st of 2011.

This means that City Hall decided to send this decree only after the Human Rights Center addressed court. This means that it was never a problem for City Hall to issue this information. However, it decided to avoid responsibility and advice Human Rights Center to address Court.

This decree sent by Tbilisi City Hall concerned business trips of Mayor of Tbilisi Giorgi Ugulava to Israel and Turkey. The decree notes that the Mayor of Tbilisi Giorgi Ugulava visited Tel Aviv during March 28th-29th and Istanbul from March 30th to April 3rd and 3733 GEL was spent on these trips.

The second question of Human Rights Center – who the Mayor went with and how much was spent for their trips, was again left unanswered.

Thus, lawyer of Human Rights Center Nestan Londaridze noted at the hearing that their request was partially satisfied and the response of Tbilisi City Hall is not a comprehensive answer to their question.

Representative of City hall noted that Tbilisi Mayor did not make other business trips. As for the people who went with him, she stated: “Since the decree does not talk about this, it means nobody accompanied Mayor.”

Lawyer Nestan Londaridze stated that this should have been clearly stated in the response of City Hall and therefore, the response was not comprehensive.

Court found that Tbilisi City Hall gave comprehensive answer to the letter of Human Rights Center.

Court notes in its decision: “Disputed information is not adopted, processed, created or protected in the City Hall of Tbilisi. Thus, by analyzing abovementioned legal provisions, the Court considers that there is no legal ground to oblige the defendant to carry out an action.”

It should be noted that Human Rights Center did not dispute whether or not certain information existed in City Hall but it disputed the issue of comprehensiveness of response of City Hall.