The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection Rodoljub Sabic spoke today with the State Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac about certain problems related to the possibility of access to data by the Public Prosecutor's Office on electronic communications of citizens from databases kept by the electronic communication operators and providers.
The Commissioner stated that the meeting was very useful, since it confirmed the resolve of the leading persona of the state prosecutorial structure to, when it comes to the implementation of measures of automatic computer search of personal and other related data, strictly apply the provisions of the Constitution and the Criminal Proceedings Law, meaning to ensure that the application of such measures was only possible upon a decision of a court of law.
In this regard, the Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic stated the following:
«The direct reason for the aforementioned meeting and conversation was the request for protection and opinion that was submitted to the Commissioner by Telenor with regards to certain concrete demands for access to 'withheld data' that were submitted in a manner which could have led to law violations and human rights infringements.
During our meeting, my colleague Ms Dolovac stated that she shared my opinion and view of Article 41 of the Constitution, which states that the confidentiality of communication is inviolable, while derogations shall be allowed only based on decision of the court of law, and of Article 504lj Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Proceedings Law, which emphasizes the fact that the measure of automatic computer search of personal and other related data and its electronic processing can only be ordered by an investigative judge.
In front of me, during our meeting, Ms Dolovac phoned the Chief Higher Prosecutor in Vranje, where the disputed requests originated from, stated the above-mentioned stance, and ordered to immediately, without further ado, inform the operator that the submitted requests were being withdrawn, and that in the future, if and when the conditions are met, only submit requests with a previously-obtained warrant. She informed me that she believes that the submission of disputed requests was an isolated incident, an exception - not a rule, and that all of the Chief Prosecutors will be informed of the aforementioned stance.
This professional reaction of the State Public Prosecutor, taken into consideration the principle of strict subordination in the work of the Prosecutor's Office, will have a very useful result. In the disarray that ensued after the Law on Electronic Communications was adopted with provisions containing the possibility of access to electronic communication data, which seriously jeopardized Article 41 of the Constitution, we will now have one less thing to worry about. The Prosecution will access this data only after obtaining a warrant in accordance with the Constitution and the Law.»
