DOCUMENTATION
INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTSGUIDELAWS & UNDER LAW DOCUMENTSOTHER LANGUAGESCOMMISSIONER`S WORK ACTSREPORTSQ & APOSITIONS & OPINIONSOTHERSSTATEMENTS
STATEMENTSMEDIA
MEDIAFINANCE
BUDGETARCHIVES
DOCUMENTATION
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, Rodoljub Sabic, in the letter sent to the Prime Minister of the Government of Serbia, appealed to the government representatives to abstain from statements by which unrealistic importance is allocated to the very fact of adopting the Law on Personal Data Protection, as one of the conditions for approaching White Schengen List and the EU. He asked the Government to direct its attention on things which are much more important for reaching those goals. Evaluating that some important issues have been chronically and in an unacceptable measure underestimated, the Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic stated in relation to that:
“The laws can secure the desired effects only if they receive a passable grade regarding the standpoint of harmonization with the European legal standards, and from the standpoint of their application in real life. One must not close eyes facing the fact that in relation to this, when we speak about Law on Personal Data Protection, very big problems can occur, and that without delay one can undertake everything to remove them if that is at all possible.
Speaking about harmonization with the European standards, the main problem shall still be famous Article 45 of the Law. It is good that preliminary proposed incredibly bad formulation has been changed. However, even the new formulation, even that it is generally speaking, better than the old one, is still based on the idea that someone can suspend and limit legally stipulated authorities of supervisory body. International standards envisage full independence of supervisory bodies, so such decision does not exist anywhere but in our country, and therefore it is not likely that it would, when the time comes, receive a passable grade by the EU observers.
Regarding conditions for law implementation the things are also in very bad shape. It has been envisaged that the functions of the supervisory body and protection of the rights shall be taken over by the current Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and that is already from January 1st. And that Commissioner is for years already facing big problems, which besides else include specific obstruction by the Government of Serbia. The Commissioner was also within the current authorizations facing big and constantly growing scope of works and he also works in inadequate conditions, with the service which is several times smaller than the envisaged one. Therefore even at this moment there are several hundreds of outstanding cases, which even without a new inflow, require several months of work. Simultaneously the Government of Serbia is chronically, for years ignoring logistics, space related and other problems of the Commissioner, for the resolving of which it is in charge, and despite the repeated requests by the Commissioner and by the public, it persistently fails to activate certain mechanisms important for achieving freedom in accessing information. It is absurd to expect in such conditions from the Commissioner to properly respond to additional, much heavier tasks, of bigger scope and complexity, which are even in the countries with much less population performed by excellently supported bodies with several times bigger number of employees. If the quoted circumstances shall not be changed without delay, already minimal chances shall be not only directly endangered to secure implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection, but the achieved level of implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information shall be questioned.”
27-10-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Trustee for the information of public importance Mr. Rodoljub Sabic estimates that the current events, related to enormous encrease in the naturl gas price as well as to the problems concerning the organisation of Universiade in Belgrade, are another confirmation of the chronically inadequate attitude of the authorities towards public. According to the Trustee the unpreparadeness to make the work of the authorities at all levels as transparent as possible, to provide the maximum visibility of operations, especiallly when it comes to managing material and financial resoources, leaves the society without a control mechanism which has proved as very efficient in the democratic societies, thus causing the damage, not only of financial nature but it reflects at the reputation of the institutions and the state. Concerning all afore said the Trustee Rodoljub Sabic pointed out:
„It is obvious that the majority of information on the price and procurement model of natural gas facing now the public are not from yesterday, quite opposite, they have been present for a very long time now. However, our public has been, till recently, completely ignorant of them. Such attitude is completely unacceptable. It must be undeniable right of Serbian citizens to not only know what they are paying, to know what and why constitutes the price of natural gas, but get the right information which will disperse, or with appropriate consequences, confirm the doubts about the existence of missuses or corruption, occuring in relation to this. The more the subject of these operations is available for the public, the possibilities for such doubts to appear at all, and even more to be justifiable, are less.
The organization of the Belgrade Universiade is not a novelty either; it has lasted for three years now. Even though, there were some sporadic, excess news saying that the organization is not progressing as it should, the public was practically completely denied the information on cost of organization, on the budget for the Universiade. Then, suddenly, in order to prevent the scandal of international proportion to happen, the Government suspended the authorities of the management and took over the organization. Now the public is being informed that all suspicious contracts are under revision and the models have been found for spending much less money on certain things than originally planned, and that the final, considerably reduced budget will be known in two to three weeks. Numerous things are still unclear, much information is missing and we are yet to see whether anyone will bear the consequences for what has happened. Anyhow, I think that at least the budget, whose definition is announced by the government working group, and certainly the report on its commissioning later on, limitations and delays, must be available for the public without any conditions.
The problems concerning the availability of the two mentioned phenomena, are not some special exceptions, they are just a good illustration of the current situation. That is why the Government, at all its levels and in order to confirm the proclaimed orientation for struggle against misuses and corruption, must before all raise the securing of higher and ever increasing availability of information of public importance at the level of a principle. This principle must be valid in all cases, and especially when it comes to information on the conditions important for the life conditions of citizens or manifestations which are in the end financed by the money of the citizens. “
22-10-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: SEEMO/IPI
SEEMO/IPI Voices Support for Amendments Proposed to the Draft Law on
Personal Data Protection in Serbia
The Vienna-based South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO), a network of editors, media executives and leading journalists from South East Europe and an affiliate of the International Press Institute (IPI), voices its support for proposed amendments forwarded to the Serbian National Parliament on 18 September 2008, altering the Draft Law on Personal Data Protection.
SEEMO particularly welcomes the proposed amendment to remove section 2 of Article 45, which restricts the role of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, who generally acts on behalf of Serbia's citizens. Under this Article, the Commissioner is prevented from scrutinizing information collected by State representatives for purposes of clarifying whether such information was appropriately collected if State representatives have classified this information as important for national security. Such a restriction on the Commissioner's oversight capabilities potentially facilitates illegal and uncontrolled activities by State representatives, including against journalists.
SEEMO Secretary General Oliver Vujovic lauded the proposed changes, emphasizing that,"journalists in Serbia are particularly vulnerable to State efforts to access their personal data for inappropriate purposes, and so we welcome this effort to ensure that they are better protected from such activity."
SEEMO is a regional network of editors, media executives and leading journalists in South East Europe.
Vienna, 9 October 2008
15-10-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
On a request from several media to comment the amendment to Article 45 of the Law on Personal Data Protection set by the Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly and accepted by the representative of Serbian Government, Commissioner for Information Rodoljub Šabić said the following:
“I still think that the best and the only consistent solution would be to accept what the Ombudsman and the Commissioner propose, i.e. the deletion of paragraph 2 of Article 45. As it is, I can say that on the general level the new formulation of Article 45 is certainly better than the previous. True, this was not actually a problem because the arrangement proposed in paragraph 2 was extremely bad without these subsequent corrections and it left the possibility for security structures to perform any illegal processing of information if they wished and to eliminate possible intervention by the Commissioner invoking even ostensible security reasons since nobody could control them. They would themselves be in a position to decide whether there would be protection of data at all, which I dismissed as a logical and legal nonsense announcing resignation should this arrangement be adopted in the form it has been proposed. The Supreme Court of Appeal is included in the mechanism of Article 45 by the new formulation in a way that it envisages the possibility of limiting the Commissioner's authorities only after obtaining the relevant opinion of the president of this Court and this is a different thing in principle.
However, on a technical level the formulation of this new solution seems, to say the least, awkward and disputable from the aspect of some basic legal postulations, at least to me. Underlying this solution is the assumption that the president of this Court is an “authority”, although only the Court itself can be termed thus; another underlying assumption is the “binding nature” of something which is not binding by definition because no one's opinion is binding. In my opinion, the practice will show that the solution is virtually inapplicable, i.e. that its possible application could endanger the security interests the Government purportedly wants to protect by this. This is why I am convinced that this arrangement cannot survive for a long time and that it will disappear from the legal order at the latest by the adoption of the Law on Secret Data Classification. And it would be best if deputies adopted the Ombudsman's amendment which is still a current issue during voting on amendments and prevent this arrangement becoming a part of the legal order.”
14-10-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
In connection with the continuing debate in the National Assembly concerning the amendments to the Bill on Personal Data Protection, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance called for the provision referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 45 to be eliminated. The Commissioner said again that this provision, which envisaged that the Commissioner's authorities to have access to data, collection of data and premises, which are necessary for normal performing of the function, “can be limited because of state or public security…”, left scope for numerous abuses. In connection with this, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić also said the following:
“This provision leaves wide possibilities to undefined, but undoubtedly large number of subjects for unauthorized tapping, recording, interception of the Internet and other forms of illegal processing of personal data without any risk because they can stop every possible attempt of the competent body to prevent it simply by making up reasons referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 45. Those who should be monitored under the law are thus left the possibility to decide themselves whether they will let those who should monitor them do their work. This is unsustainable, legally and logically.
This provision is on unacceptably low level, not just conceptually, but normatively and technically as well, because it remains completely unclear who could and how, de facto or by any procedure, limit the Ombudsman's authorities. Thus, even if it was generally acceptable, formulated in this way it brings dilemmas and uncertainty in legal order.
Claims that such arrangement is compliant with the relevant international documents show a lack of understanding of the difference between the right of citizens to protection and authorities of the body competent for providing the protection. Of course, international documents leave a possibility to deny protection to citizens in certain cases, but existence of legal conditions for that is evaluated by and the right and information are denied by the authority which is established for protection and not by those against which the protection is guaranteed. Otherwise, there is no protection at all. This is why the arrangement referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 45 grossly and incomprehensibly contradicts the position and authorities envisaged for independent monitoring bodies which should provide the protection of the right by, for example, Article 28 of the Directive 95/46 EC or Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Protection of Persons against Automatic Processing of Personal Data. I do not know what can explain the non-acceptance of these generally accepted standards and if all other possibilities are excluded it can probably be explained by the incompetence of the civil servants engaged in preparation of the bill who may not be aware that they confuse the backer of the law.
In any case, I think that the provision referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 45 defined in this way must not remain in the text of the Law. It is absolutely irrelevant whether the protection of citizens' rights is provided by the Commissioner for information or some other body, the important thing is that this protection is real. It would harm the reputation of the country and human rights if the new law offered to the citizens protection which would depend on a good will of those against whose activities, among other things, the protection is being introduced.”
13-10-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Mr. Rodoljub Sabic attended the annual counseling of Serbian judges called “Judicial Days of Serbia” in Vrnjacka Banja. Addressing the meeting with a speech titled “Freedom of Access to Information and the Judiciary”, the Commissioner emphasized a need for the judiciary to make a substantial input in the affirmation of the freedom of access to information as a basic human right and as an assumption for the exercise of numerous other rights and freedoms. Among other things, Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic said:
“The freedom of information implies of necessity full awareness of the duty of all public authorities, including the judicial ones, to treat all requests made by the citizens and by the public at large in accordance with the assumption that the public has the general right to know everything in connection with the operations of public authorities and that this right can be limited only in exceptional cases.
“In the modern world, this assumption implies even more. It also implies a duty of public authorities to proactively make as much information on their work as possible available to the public at large, without waiting for specific requests for information. In our day and age, the Internet emerges as an indispensable medium in this context. Presuming from this fact, I think the situation regarding Internet use in our judiciary, especially as far as Internet presentations of judicial authorities are concerned, is very worrying. The fact that less than 10% of judicial authorities have any form of electronic presentation needs no further comment. This is why it is necessary to improve the material and financial conditions necessary to change this situation. Furthermore, it is highly important for the judicial authorities to make maximum use of their available resources, especially of the skills and inventiveness of their staff. Some examples of electronic presentations of Serbian courts, such as the First Municipal Court and the Fifth Municipal Court of Belgrade or the electronic portal of the commercial courts' network, show that even in poor conditions it is still possible to achieve European-quality results.”
06-10-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The meeting dedicated to celebration of the International Right to Know Day, 28 September was held today at the Media Centre in Belgrade with participation of a large number of representatives of media, NGOs, government bodies and diplomatic chorus members. Addresses were made by: Milan Marković, Minister of State Administration and Local Self-government, Ambassador Hans Ola Urstad, head of OSCE Mission to Serbia, Saša Janković, Ombudsman, Nadežda Gaće, President of the Independent Journalists Association of Serbia, Tamara Orlandić on behalf of the Open Society Fund and NGO Coalition on Freedom of Access to Information and Rodoljub Šabić, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance.
In connection with the celebration of the International Right to Know Day, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said the following:
“It is well known that there are many problems in the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information. Still, on this day, which is celebrated in a similar way in more than hundred countries in the world which are or want to be democratic countries, it makes sense to give credit to the efforts and results of government bodies which improve their public relations.
Overall, given the structure of the government, the efforts made and results achieved in improved implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information fall below what is necessary and feasible. We are thus missing an opportunity to produce better results in further democratization, establishment of better relationships in the media sphere and especially in combating idleness, abuse, crime and corruption. This is exactly why the examples of these public authorities, which show that they see the freedom of access to information not as an imposed obligation, but rather as the normal relationship between the government and the public in a democratic society, deserve full acclaim.“
On that occasion, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, Mr. Rodoljub Šabić, presented the president of the Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Miloš Bugarin, with an award for outstanding contribution to the exercise of freedom of access to information, which the award committee granted to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce and network of regional commercial chambers. The representatives of the Provincial Secretariat for Information, city of Šabac and First Municipal Court in Belgrade received awards for contribution to the exercise of freedom of access to information.
The award committee, comprising representatives of a number of non-governmental organizations and journalists' associations (Open Society Fund, Transparency Serbia, Centre for Advanced Legal Studies, NGO “People's Parliament”, Youth Initiative for Human Rights, Independent Journalists Association of Serbia), selected the recipients among 14 short-listed public authorities. These included: Republic Public Attorney's Office, Supreme Commercial Court with network of 17 commercial courts, Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade, the District Court in Novi Sad, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-government, Ministry of Diaspora, Serbian Chamber of Commerce, Provincial Secretariat for Information, the City of Novi Sad, municipality of Novi Beograd, the City of Šabac, the City of Valjevo and the City of Smederevo.
In anticipation the International Right to Know Day, a number of activities was organized in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš, Novi Pazar and many other towns and cities across Serbia, as part of a joint action of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and OSCE Mission to Serbia, USAID, ABA CEELI, Open Society Fund, NGO Coalition on Freedom of Access to Information and the Independent Journalists Association of Serbia. All these events were used to distribute a large amount of handouts, bulletins, leaflets and Guides through the Law on Free Access to Information.
26-09-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Asked by Beta agency to comment on the possible adoption of the Law on Personal Data Protection, which could contain an amended provision from Article 45, paragraph 2 of the Bill which the Commissioner for Information criticized and the Ombudsman requested its deletion by an adequate amendment, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said the following:
“I categorically claim and back it with all my expert and professional dignity that an arrangement similar to the one envisaged in Article 45 paragraph 2 of the Bill, which completely relativizes the powers of a body responsible for personal data protection, cannot be found anywhere in comparative law, that this same arrangement grossly contravenes the commitments we assumed by signing the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Protection of Persons against Automatic Processing of Personal Data and that it is below the level of competence of the Ombudsman, which was laid down by the existing Law, passed as early as in 1998.
It is irrelevant whether personal data protection will be provided by the Commissioner or some other independent body. What is important is only that he has at his disposal real authorities to perform his function, because real, not ostensible, protection is necessary. Certain states sometimes limit the right of citizens to personal data protection by laws or reservations to international conventions, but limitation like these are not envisaged for a body which provides guaranteed protection. Even the said Law on Personal Data Protection from the time of Milošević's rule, adopted in 1998, envisages identical or even slightly higher powers, but without any limitations. I would like to add that it seems almost absurd to have Bill on Personal Data Protection and the ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Protection of Persons against Automatic Processing of Personal Data on the agenda of the same session of the National Assembly because limitations such as the one set out in Article 45 paragraph 2 cannot be understood from the aspect of position and powers envisaged by the Additional Protocol for competent bodies.
I think that by adopting an arrangement which brings a protection mechanism that would not only contravene international democratic standards, but would actually provide a level of protection lower than the one granted ten years ago, a pro-European and democratic government would send to our citizens and the wider region a message that is pretty difficult to decipher. And if such an arrangement were to be adopted, it could be truly detrimental to human rights in more ways than one. In this context, resignation of the current Commissioner for Information, which I am prepared to offer and which I announced not because I want to blackmail or flirt, but out of personal and professional principles, is the least important issue.”
25-09-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić said that score and ranking of our country on this year's Global Corruption Perception Index were worrying and that they mean that much will have to be reconsidered within the concept on which anti-corruption efforts were based. In this context, the Commissioner particularly emphasized the following:
“I recently publicly predicted this score. I have to say I am not pleased in the least to see my prediction proven true. It certainly is a problem that we scored 3.4 on a scale from 1 to 10, which is far below5.0 as the first passing mark, and that we are tied for 85-92 with Montenegro, Albania, Senegal, Panama and India - all of them constantly considered as countries with extremely high corruption levels.
We are used to bad scores and bad ranking because we never actually “shined” on CPI. Since our country has been observed and scored, all the scores we received after 2000 were, as I have said before, very unsatisfactory. We started as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with an alarmingly low, literally catastrophic score 1.3 we inherited from Milošević. We were later improving and moving up from that score, reserved almost exclusively for African and South American dictatorships. The score changed from 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 3.0 to the last year's 3.4, which is the best score we received so far, but it remains a bad score.
This is why I believe the largest problem here is that we have repeated the last year's score. The score is not worse, but neither is it better than last year, not even by one per mile. There was no improvement and this cannot be ignored. If something was valuable and encouraging in this succession of bad scores, it was the fact that we managed to improve - only just - those scores from year to year. The improvement was very slow, but evident. We were moving forward, albeit at a snail's pace. This year's score shows that this advancement has stopped. It is a very serious warning and more than a good reason to reconsider the “concept” on which the fight against corruption in our country is based.
A large gap between what is proclaimed and normative and what happens in real life is evident. Adoption of anti-corruption instruments, laws, strategies, plans, ratifications of international conventions and membership in international associations are important, but they alone cannot yield results. Those results must be achieved in real life through actions of relevant institutions and consequent achievement of adequate principles. And virtually all anti-corruption institutions operate in inadequate conditions and some of them, such as the Public Procurement Administration and the State Audit Institution operate in literally catastrophic conditions. The Government and the executive authorities cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer. As regards e.g. the principle of transparency, freedom of information, accountability of the government, which evidently facing strong resistance, the Government cannot delay any longer the activation of mechanisms to break that resistance. I am convinced that an anti-corruption concept which is not based on the realm of reality must be changed as a matter of utmost urgency. If we do not change it, our score could be even worse next year.”
23-09-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić, evaluated submitting of Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act by the Ombudsman Saša Janković, as a confirmation of the Ombudsman's readiness to consistently and in principle insist on civil rights' protection and he appealed to the Government of Serbia to accept those amendments as though the Government has made them. The Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić has especially stressed the importance of the amendments pleading for elimination of those provisions from the law proposal, that open up the opportunity for tricking the proclaimed protection. In relation to that, the Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić has especially stressed:
“I have already publicly warned of solutions enabling tricking of the proclaimed protection and I have appealed to the Government to delete them from the law proposal. That primarily pertains to provisions from Article 45 paragraph 2 of the Law, envisaging that the body in charge of personal data protection can have limited access to relevant data, besides else from the reasons of state or public safety. I am satisfied because the Ombudsman shares my opinion, and I appeal to the Government to accept the amendments he has submitted.
It would be a real pity that the law which is otherwise necessary to us, and which is in the biggest part based on good, democratic standards, should due to a couple of bad provisions in one important segment, provide instead of real personal data protection, only its illusion. The citizens would receive “protection” that someone could, at his own free will, eliminate whenever he wishes. And although Article 45 paragraph 2 has been articulated in such a way that it isn't clear even who can eliminate it with just formal reference to the law, it is clear that a very wide, undefined circle of other subjects can use that opportunity. Such solutions for instance, open up the space for performing illegal activities related to distribution of biometrical data, interception of mail, telephone calls, Internet communication, as well as for innumerable other “more benign” illegal “processing of” personal data, without protection of the rights of citizens, that is, with easy elimination of the same.
It isn't good, it is a pity, leaving a bitter impression and it seems almost cynical that the Government, instead of proposing Secret Data Classification Act that is missing for years, is proposing in the context of European standards' implementation, solutions that are much closer to the standards of the “security culture“ from the first half of the last century.
Personal data protection doesn't have to be performed by the Commissioner for Information, it can be also performed by some other independent body. But whichever the body in question might be, that protection has to be comprehensive and effective, and according to international standards it must understand protection from all forms of illegal data processing, regardless who performs that processing, including all state bodies. That is ordered not only by democratic standards, but also by obligations assumed from international contracts. In the presence of such articulated Article 45 paragraph 2, personal data protection has been made very relative, and simultaneously the possibility becomes obvious to efficiently abuse those provisions for making void the authorizations of the Commissioner for Information, the ones he already has, and which are necessary to him, as well as to all other bodies with such authorizations in the whole world, in order to protect one other right, the right to freely access information. Suspicion present in the public that this is the exact reason for entering Article 45 paragraph 2 in the law proposal should be best eliminated by accepting the adequate Ombudsman's amendment.“
19-09-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić evaluates that we should not too optimistically await the approaching publishing of the Annual Global Corruption Perception Index (CPI), that shall be organized by Transparency International by the end of this month in more than 180 countries of the world. It would be very good, but this is unfortunately of little probability that our country shall more importantly improve its mark in relation to the last year's one. Even the last year's mark in CPI, although the best so far, was still unsatisfactory, and classified us into the group of countries where corruption is a system problem. Therefore, whatever the mark in this year's CIP might be, it should be a basis for serious questioning of the things the state has done so far within anti-corruption efforts, and especially regarding the things it omitted to do.
In relation to that, the Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić especially stressed:
„In the last ten years, since our country has entered CPI evaluation process, our mark has improved from literally catastrophic 1.3 to 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, and 3.0 to the last year's also unsatisfactory 3.4. It is evident that there is some progress, but also that it is extremely slow and that with such a tempo it would take us too much time, which we can't permit, to reach mark 5.0, which is in the CPI scale ranging from 0 to 10 considered acceptable.
It is obvious that we need much more qualitative results in the fight against corruption. The achieving of results, besides strategies, laws and other normative documents also means implementation of globally confirmed principles, and of course, existence and action of effective institutions and mechanisms that must have at their disposal both authorizations and adequate material prerequisites.
However, practically all institutions that have anti-corruption role or potential work in inadequate, even extremely bad conditions. Especially worrisome is dramatically bad situation in which operate Republic Public Procurements Agency and State Auditing Institution, two bodies that should represent main anti-corruption levers in the public expenditures field, which is traditionally, in the global frameworks, the most attractive one for corruption and its perpetrators.
Public Procurement Administration has for the use of forty-some employees, working with large quantities of often delicate documents, only 150 m2 of office space. The State Auditing Institution doesn't have anything at all at its disposal. This problem hasn't appeared yesterday, but is evident for years, and it still hasn't been resolved. Such situation can not be simply tolerated, because it is not only detrimental for the reputation of those bodies and the state in general, but can also derive real repercussions as damage measured in hundreds of millions of euros, the damage those bodies, if they would function in normal conditions, could prevent.
In a similar way one should observe the obvious resistance, that is, lateness in affirming the principle of increased transparency, that is, of visibility of operations in the work of public authorities, especially speaking about handling public money and goods. The biggest number of problems appear in the public exactly in relation to these information. If one desires anti-corruption results, it is important, even necessary that obligation of all bodies in power should be confirmed in practice, of all who use public funds, that even without specific requests they should make an increasing number of such information on a routine, proactive basis available to the public in a specific, understandable, documented way, including their Internet publishing. It is however, understood that it is of the utmost importance that the highest and the most responsible Republic authorities should give a positive example in relation to that.“
18-09-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, Rodoljub Šabić, talked today to Minister of Culture Nebojša Bradić about problems in the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, particularly those which are caused by the Ministry of Culture and Serbian Government's failure to meet their legal obligations.
On this occasion, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said:
“Article 45 of the Law envisages that the monitoring of the implementation of the Law should be performed by the ministry in charge of informing, i.e. the Ministry of Culture. This obligation is extremely complex and it includes monitoring of the situation in the large number of public authorities, as well as taking actions for initiating infringement procedures against persons who broke the Law. As I have been pointing out for years, the Ministry did not have, and still does not have, even the elementary conditions for performing this function. The absurd inability is best illustrated by the fact that at this moment the Ministry has only one man for monitoring more than 11 thousand subjects.
For reasons stated above, infringement liability has existed only symbolically for years. As the Serbian Government does not at all fulfil its obligation referred to in Article 28 paragraph 2 of the Law - to provide enforcement of the Commissioner's decision in case it is necessary - this considerably undermines anti-corruption and democratic effects of the implementation of the Law and is objectively a serious encouragement for those who have interest in breaking the law, those who have something to hide from the public.
I have emphasized the need for providing real monitoring and imposing stricter liability for breaking the law in all reports to the National Assembly as well. Although reports were adopted, competent persons did nothing about it. A relevant Bill of Amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance has been prepared recently as a civil initiative, organized by the Coalition for Freedom of Access to Information. It was submitted to the National Assembly, with several thousand signatures of support form the citizens and in accordance with the Constitution. Unfortunately, for reasons which are really hard to understand, the fate of that Bill is unknown, it virtually „disappeared”, which I find unacceptable.
In an open and constructive conversation, I suggested to Mr. Bradić that Ministry should support that Bill and accept it as its own, in its entirety or with certain modifications, and the Minister expressed readiness to accept the suggestion. It is, in my opinion, not only the expression of a fair treatment of civil initiative based on the Constitution, but also the first major step towards solution to the problems which evidently make the implementation of the Law very difficult, but whose solving has been postponed for years.”
02-09-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić said that the recent valuable discovery of hitherto unknown historical documents in the Archive of Serbia had to give rise to serious reconsideration not only of actual conditions in which this important state institution operates, but also of the existing or lacking legal solutions necessary for the Archive to perform its functions properly. From the aspect of exercise of freedom of information, the Commissioner emphasized problems arising from the non-existence of a separate law on handling secret services files, and he reiterated his support for passing such law.
In this context, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić also said the following:
“This paradox that valuable documents are discovered now, although they have been in the Archive of Serbia for years, only confirms the fact that the Archive of Serbia operates with inadmissibly poor logistics, finances, premises and other similar conditions and it would be irresponsible to keep on ignoring this fact.
The fact that the Archive faces, or will face, huge problems because of serious shortcomings in the normative system as well must not be ignored. In recent years the Archive took from Security Information Agency several hundred thousands of documents and several dozen thousands of files which were the output of former secret services. According to the Law on Free Access to Information, these documents became a possible object of interest for persons who are directly affected by them and, possibly, for the general public. With the existing resources, the Archive is not capable of handling according to the set procedure e.g. several dozens thousand requests for access to information from these documents and an attempt to do that could make considerably difficult, even paralyze performing of basic functions.
In a democratic society, the right to access to information of persons who were subjected to illegal “processing” by secret services must be indisputable. The right of the public to access information from those files, at least the largest part of it, must be indisputable as well. On the other hand, because of the delicate nature and contents of these documents, as well as for many other reasons, virtually all former socialist countries enabled the public by special laws complete or partial access to information from the files of former regimes' secret services. Our country remains virtually the only one that has not done this, and I think that we should finally set about the task of drafting and enacting such a law in a serious, responsible way.“
27-08-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, Rodoljub Sabic, has in the letter sent to the Prime Minister of the Government of Serbia, Mirko Cvetkovic, suggested to the Government to change certain solutions by amendments to the text of Proposal of the Personal Data Protection Act, that the Government has recently determined and delivered to the National Assembly.
In relation to that, Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic, stated the following:
„I have considered it my duty to point out to the Proposal, the passing of which I support in general, which contains certain number of solutions that could and should be made more clear and precise by amendments, but also solutions that should be deleted.
It is primarily, Article 45 paragraph 2 of the Law Proposal, enabling the security authorities to deny to the body that should protect personal data, due to reasons of "state and public safety" for as long "until those reasons exist", insight into relevant data, collections of data, even access to the premises.
Such expandable and fluid basis for limiting human rights' protection should be the thing of the past. They leave an opportunity for abuses and significantly handicap the possibilities for effective personal data protection, regardless of what authority should be entrusted with that protection. In the specific case the thing is additionally complicated and made controversial by the fact that as the body in charge of protecting personal data is envisaged an already existing state authority - Commissioner for Information. And that authority, according to the Law on Free Access to Information, has explicit right of insight, without limitations into every information carrier owned by the authorities in power.
Possibility for discretionary, extremely important narrowing of authorizations of the authority in charge in the procedure of control and protection of rights is contravening not only the existing authorizations of the Commissioner for Information, but also standards determined in international documents we have signed. Provisions of the Convention on Protection of Persons in Relation to Automatic Data Processing and Additional Protocol to the Convention, regulating the position of the supervising bodies, and which amongst else also envisage authorizations to meddle without limitations into all legal procedures and to point out to infringements of the law, including the authorizations to start investigation independently, drastically differ from the solution from Article 45 paragraph 2. Therefore it appears almost ironical that such a solution is proposed to the Assembly simultaneously with Protocol ratification.
Therefore, Article 45 paragraph 2 should be deleted from Law Proposal text body. In relation to that, I turned to Ombudsman, who shall in order to preventively act in human rights protection submit adequate amendments, but I think that it would be very good if the Government would do the same.
I have also underlined to the Government the fact that the envisaged deadline for enacting the Law is completely unrealistic. It is a fact that the Government and its respective services in charge haven't even after three and a half years from the beginning of law implementation, secured conditions even for executing jobs from the existing scope of the work of the Commissioner. Therefore the Commissioner's service, besides huge inflow of cases, works with only 7, instead of the envisaged 21 worker. It would be irresponsible self-deception to believe in the possibility of that service, with such support, in those circumstances and in such a short deadline should take over multiple, incomparably bigger obligations in personal data protection field.“
20-08-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić says that by passing the Draft Law on Personal Data Protection the Serbian Government took a crucial step towards establishing a legal mechanism which Serbia, unfortunately, does not have and which is necessary to a modern democratic society.
With the full principal support to the passing of this Law, the Commissioner warns that certain arrangements included in the Draft Law can present real threat for thwarting or getting around the guaranteed protection and that in the process of adoption they should be critically reconsidered, amended or eliminated.
Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said the following about this:
“It is commendable that the Draft Law is for the most part based on the standards which were affirmed for this field a long time ago in the democratic world. However, it must not be ignored that it also contains some provisions which can be the basis for playing thwarting or even complete getting around of personal data protection in certain cases.
This is above all true of the provision of paragraph 2 of the Article 45 of the Draft Law which, among other things, envisages possibility of denying possibility of access to data, collection of data, documentation or even premises to the body competent for personal data protection by security agencies for very laxly defined, “bendable” reasons.
With this kind of limitation, the possibility of personal data protection would actually be excluded. This is why it is not clear what could be the legal or logical basis for this arrangement. I think it is particularly controversial, since the body competent for the personal data protection should be the Commissioner for Information, that this provision actually opens the possibility for denying the right which was already guaranteed to the Commissioner under the Law on Free Access to Information - unlimited right to access to every medium owned by a government body.
Even if we exclude the possibility of abuse of the above provisions, which is certainly not possible, it is clear that they are obviously opposite to the basic aim of passing the law - providing effective personal data protection. Besides, such limitations are also obviously opposite to the authorizations and positions which independent bodies competent for personal data protection have and to the Protocol to the Convention on Protection of Persons against automatic personal data processing, which we signed and the ratification of which is also pending for the same reasons for which the passing of the Law was proposed in an expedited procedure.
Providing really effective personal data protection requires exclusion of the above solution and some other controversial solutions from the text of the Draft Law. Since the Commissioner for Information did not get the possibility to propose amendments to laws referring to the field of his competence even after the constitutional changes, I will talk about that to the Ombudsman, who has that right under the Constitution. I am sure that the Ombudsman will submit adequate amendments and I think that it would be very good if some deputies or deputy groups did that as well.”
04-08-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
A number of journalists and representatives of media contacted the Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance regarding the Republic Agency of Telecommunications Decision stipulating „Technical Conditions for Sub-systems, Devices, Equipment and Installations“. In this context, and acting on request of BETA Agency to comment on public reaction to the adoption of this document, the Commissioner, Mr. Rodoljub Šabić, said the following:
“It would be good if RATEL immediately entered into a document regulating “Technical Conditions for Sub-systems, Devices, Equipment and Instalations“an explicit provision, stating that the same shall be applied based on Court order only.
The reactions of experts and the public to the above mentioned Technical Conditions, adopted by the Republic Agency of Telecommunications, should in any case be welcomed. Such reactions, even if too brisk for some, nevertheless show that there is a civil self-respect in our society and that there is readiness to stand up for protection of human rights; these are things indispensable for a democratic society.
Without questioning the independent position of the Republic Agency of Telecommunications as a regulatory body in this field, it would be necessary for RATEL to duly address all these reactions and show readiness to revise and change some of the terms of the Technical Conditions articulated so that they cause misunderstanding and dilemmas, and to asses once again if some of the solutions (such as the obligation to periodically submit user data base, at the request of the Service, or that the appointment of a person in charge for communication with the Service is subject to the approval of the Service) belong to the sphere of Technical Conditions at all, or even if such matters are to be regulated, and only if possible, by the law.
A word of professor Jovan Radunovic, the director of RATEL, saying that the implementation of „Technical Conditions“ is possible based on court order only, should be greeted as a reassuring one. However, in a country based on the rule of law, such guarantees must be based not on a word of officials, but on the explicit and consistent legal norms; here, in this case, we have problem.
The “Technical Conditions” were adopted to ensure the implementation of provisions of Article 55 of Telecommunications Law. But, from the viewpoint of its relation with the corresponding provisions of the Constitution of Serbia, this provision of the law is, to put it mildly, controversial.
The Constitution of Serbia, in Article 41, guarantees the confidentiality of mail and other means of communication, and it stipulates that the departure from this guarantee is possible, under certain conditions, but based on court decision only. However, Article 55 of Telecommunications Law does not provide identical solution; it envisages, though, possible departures “if these activities are maintained in accordance with the law or court order.” Such wording, the term “or”, opens the possibility for the interpretation that court decision is not the one and only bases for the implementation of Technical Conditions, in other words, for the interception of Internet communication, and that the implementation is allowed even without it “if these activities are performed in accordance with the law.“ Such possibility represents a risk of a threat to human rights and should be eliminated. It is therefore necessary, until and before Telecommunications Law is harmonized with the Constitution, to include into the Technical Conditions document an explicit provision which rules out any dilemma. “
30-07-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Acting on request of BETA Agency to comment on Republic Agency of Telecommunications Decision establishing Technical Conditions for Sub-systems, Devices, Equipment and Instalations of the Internet Network, the Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance, Mr Rodoljub Šabić, gave a statement as follows:
“Taking into consideration the importance of electronic communications in modern world, the Technical Conditions for Sub-systems, Devices, Equipment and Installations, recently adopted by RATEL deserve serious attention. We are talking about a normative deed certain provisions of which can be widely and differently interpreted, depending on who the interpreter is; this, of course, is never good. Besides, certain provisions are regulating matters for which it should surely be better, quite justifiable in fact, to be governed by the law rather than by some sub-legal normative deed.
It can not be disputed that RATEL is authorized to establish appropriate technical conditions, nor that it is the duty of public telecommunication operators to ensure that such conditions are met (at their own expense and regardless of how great a burden it is for them), because that's expressly envisaged by the law. However, the contents of these conditions can be disputed, and it would be good to hear a public voice in this matter, first of all the voice of experts.
Our attention will surely be drawn mostly to the clauses envisaging the obligation of a provider to allow authorized Services, Police or BIA “completely autonomous passive monitoring of the Internet activities of subscribers and re-directing of the incoming and outgoing traffic.” Such clauses, namely the possibility of the abuse, rouse reserves, even fear, including calculations that similar terms could also get into fixed and mobile telephony by-laws. This fear is probably strengthened by some previous experience with bad security i.e. secret service practices. The reserves have been additionally strengthened by the fact that we are probably the last European country which doesn't have the Law on Personal Data Protection. The problem of protection of personal data has existed with us for years, and it is not by an accident that valid EU documents concluded that there is such protection in our country in theory, but not in practice. We do not have any functional protection mechanisms, and we are far from having a dominant mentality based on European democratic standards on privacy and personal data protection. That's why the abuse of “technical conditions” does not necessarily apply to public authorities only, they apply to other protagonists as well.
We might say that these technical conditions represent yet another example of how often the authorities make moves for which the public, even experts and the broad public in particular, are unprepared. It would therefore be useful to have, even post festum, some kind of a “public debate” in order to hear all those who could have valid arguments, including the Ombudsman and the Minister of Human Rights, and eliminate all possible dilemmas.
Regardless of the dilemmas regarding monitoring and interception of the Internet traffic, one of the obligations should certainly be excluded. I believe that, starting from Article 41 of the Constitution, which guarantees the confidentiality of mail and other means of communication, and which regulates possible departures from the same, the use of such options can be allowed only and solely based on court decision, for a certain period of time, and for the reasons and under the terms clearly envisaged by the law.
Of course, even when we eliminate the abstract, normative level dilemmas, it doesn't mean that we have also eliminated practical problems. The danger of the abuse of mechanisms which are limiting human rights calls for the establishment of an effective mechanism for the protection of those rights. That's why this too is an opportunity to emphasize the importance and necessity of the adoption and implementation of a modern Law on Personal Data Protection.”
28-07-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance celebrated 3 years of effective work. Since 1 July 2005, when minimum conditions were provided for the Commissioner's Office to start working, 4668 cases, mostly complaints, have been registered and 3928 have been solved. About 90% of people who were previously denied information of public importance, received information after addressing the Commissioner for Information. About 7% of complaints were refused or rejected. In several percents of all cases, when information were not received even after the Commissioner's order, the reason was failure of the Serbian Government to activate mechanisms for enforcing the Commissioner's orders, which is its legal duty.
The Commissioner organized a large number of seminars, mostly in cooperation with the civil sector, for education of employees in government bodies, citizens and journalists. Several editions of the guide through the Law were published, including editions on all languages of ethnic minorities. The Catalogue of public authorities, which includes about 11,000 subjects, was also published. Summing up the last three years, the Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said the following:
“Statistics show that we, my associates and I, managed to make a new public authority functional. I think this is reaffirmed by the really good opinions and formal recognitions from domestic and foreign experts, CoE, EU and OSCE, journalists' associations and, most importantly, from citizens.
A good thing is that results have been achieved in inadequate premises, with several times lower number of associates and with considerably lower spending of the budget resources compared to those envisaged. What is bad, however, is that work in inadequate conditions has negative effects on the Commissioner's diligence. It is really hard to understand why this very burdensome, and yet for the state so trivial problem of space has not been resolved for three years, all the more so because, for example, the National Program on EU Integration and the Personal Data Protection Bill envisage considerable extension of powers and further increase of duties of the Commissioner for Information.
The attainment of European legal standards is not a matter of nice wishes and stories, but of real life and practice, and this is why it requires necessary administrative capacities and an adequate normative environment.
The former implies the duty of the Serbian Government to finally, without further delay, provide adequate premises and working conditions for the Commissioner's Office and to activate mechanisms for enforcement of Commissioner's decisions and for liability of those who violate the Law.
The latter implies the duty of urgent adoption and actual implementation of several complementary laws, which will largely influence the quality of achievement of freedom of access to information. The first among these laws is certainly the Personal Data Protection Law. The adoption of this Law and its functional implementation are important not just because of the need to move towards a visa-free regime with the EU, but also to prevent possible violations of human rights, the potential scope of which we seem to be unaware of as a society.
Equally necessary is the Law on Confidential Data Classification. Without such modern law, it is possible, on the basis of long obsolete or completely arbitrary criteria, to grant the “confidentiality” status not only to information which does not deserve it, but also to information that is withdrawn for absolutely illegitimate interests.
Finally, we must not underestimate the fact that we are the only former socialist country which has not responded to the CoE appeal from the more than a decade old Resolution to deconstruct the legacy of former totalitarian regimes. We have not enacted any law on handling former regime secret services files, with all the negative consequences this implies.”
01-07-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, Rodoljub Šabić, reacted to an interview given by Aleksandar Tijanić, the director of RTS (Radio Television of Serbia), published in the daily paper ''Večernje novosti'' on Monday, June 2. In relation to the part of the interview in which Tijanić commented on the order given by the Commissioner for the RTS to make public, i.e. to forward to the Committee of jurists for human rights, the EUROSONG budget, which it had requested, Rodoljub Šabić said:
''The director of RTS expressed a series of disqualifications and offences on my account in an interview he had probably ordered, the content of which was later also broadcast by RTS, saying among other things that I am someone's messenger or stooge. Yet, this is not the reason for my reaction. I have already had the opportunity to be exposed to similiar verbal attacks by some public figures of similar mental constitution. I had not reacted to primitivism on those occasions, nor will I do so now. I believe that primitivism and cheap attempts to disqualify always speak best about those who use them and that thus reactions are unnecessary.
However, the director of RTS showed by this statement, besides the above mentioned, some other things to which I must react. It is not a private matter of a man who is the director of an informative public service, the fact that he does not have an elementary idea about the obligations which he has to the public according to the law. The same applies to his incapability to distinguish between the budget and the balance of the budget and particularly to his quite obvious disinformation given to the public.
The director of RTS is playing very plainly on the card of animosity which part of the public has against non-government organisations, an animosity which the public service under his management supports irresponsibly. He therefore points out that such information was requested by the non-government organisation with the president of which the director of RTS is in conflict for a long time. He is absolutely subjective and as such tries to also impute some subjectivity to the commissioner for information. And it is perfectly clear to anybody who has even little objectivity, that it is absolutely irrelevant who requests information. Because whoever it is, the undisputable fact is, that the financing of an event which cost millions of euros of public money, must be public.
The director of RTS also disinforms the public with respect to the subject of my order and the time for its materialization by the statement ''he discredited his function requesting us to complete the budget balance calculation within three days''. However, no balance nor report was requested, on the contrary the request was made for the EUROSONG budget. Thus, the document which gives the plan, forecast of the required funds for financing the event, a document which must be prepared for each big event, certainly months before it takes place.
In accordance with the above, the party requesting the information reverted to RTS back on March 31. RTS ignored this request all 15 days which it had at its disposal, and when the complaint was expressed, it acted more or less in the same manner despite the request made by the Commissioner that they make a statement, thus they did not give their stand at all with respect to the budget. The commissioner did not resolve the filed complaint within the legal timeframe, due to the enormous inflow of cases. This was done afterwards, with the issuance of the respective order. The director of RTS now expresses doubts with his statements as to whether the EUROSONG budget exists at all. However, the possible non-existence of such a document leads to an extremely unpleasant conclusion - that the EUROSONG was financed following the principle ''take as much as you like'', without any plan.
It is obvious that the document for which RTS says that it has ''three months for Minister Dinkić and the organisation board to first accept the report, and then afterwards for the documents to pass the RTS Board of Directors'', it is clear that this should be a report about the materialization of the budget. No one has asked for this for the time being, and it would be good that it be presented on the RTS web site, before anyone asks for it, which should have been done a long time ago with the budget.
Contrary to the director of RTS, I am not a cynic nor a misanthrope. And thus as a citizen and a political figure in this country I can wish him that this report be acceptable not just for the authorities, behind which it seems that the director already intends to find shelter, but also for the entire public. However, I know from experience that rude, almost panicky nervous reaction to the order of the commissioner for information does not increase in the least the chances for it to be so, on the contrary.
03-06-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, Mr. Rodoljub Šabić, says that the constantly large inflow of complaints submitted by citizens, press and others speaks for itself about the unwillingness of most public authorities to change their attitude towards the right of the public to free access to information held by public authorities. Recalling that in the first four and a half months of this year the Commissioner had received more than 560 complaints and that it clearly showed the Government had to change its attitude towards this right enshrined in the Constitution and law much faster, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić added:
“If the advocacy of more efficient fight against abuse and corruption, as well as freedom of thought, freedom of expression, media freedom and many other democratic freedoms is not accompanied by actual readiness to provide the public freedom of access to the widest possible range of information, it is either based on illusions or, even worse, on dishonesty, hypocrisy.
“The right of citizens, media and the public in general to free access to information created in the work or in connection with the work of the Government should be a matter of course in a democratic society. This right is not some new and unnecessary burden for public authorities, but an expression of a normal relationship between public authorities and citizens, voters and taxpayers. This is why the exercise of this right should rely on its enforcement by the Commissioner for Information only in exceptional circumstances, and not frequently, indeed almost as a rule.
“For this reason, the large number of complaints submitted to the Commissioner, both in absolute and in relative terms, is indicative and worrying. What is particularly worrying is that there are evident and frequent problems in the exercise of the right of free access to information, even where information involved concerns issues such as privatization of State-owned enterprises, public expenditures and procurements and other similar information which should by their very nature and by virtue of other laws be available without the guarantees provided by the Law on Free Access to Information.”
20-05-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić sent letters of congratulation to Ms Nadežda Gaće, Mr. Nino Brajović and Mr. Dinko Gruhonjić, presidents of Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia (NUNS), Association of Journalists of Serbia (UNS) and Independent Journalists' Association of Vojvodina (NDNV) respectively, to mark the World Press Freedom Day, 3 May.
With congratulations and wishes for future success, the Commissioner pointed out this day was also an opportunity to remind ourselves of the importance of press freedom and the related responsibilities of governments in democratic societies. In this context, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said:
“We cannot be satisfied with the effects of what has been achieved in legal and practical terms to create the necessary conditions for journalists and the media to perform their vital function in a way which would be far better suited to the standards and requirements of a democratic society.
When exercising their rights under the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, journalists and the media often face problems that verge on the ludicrous. The complaints they increasingly lodge with the Commissioner show that they are denied even the information which the government, under the law and the criteria of a democratic society, owes to the wider public without specific requests. Information is denied without proper justification or by putting forth “grounds” the legitimacy of which is questionable, to say the least. It is highly indicative that after three years of implementation of the Law certain mechanisms necessary for enforced exercise of these rights and for serving justice on the culprits of such denials and offences remain non-functional, even though this constitutes flagrant violation of press rights enshrined in the Constitution and the law.
At the same time, the process of phasing out government ownership of the media has slowed down considerably, coming virtually to a halt, especially as regards electronic media. Year after year, efforts to identify and bring to justice those responsible for even the gravest of offences against journalists' safety and lives fail to produce results. When press staff deal with the authorities, they often face derisory, disrespectful and discriminating actions, and even worse - vulgarity and brutality. All these and other similar facts need no comment because they speak for themselves. They reveal a huge gap between what the government publicly proclaims and what it does in practice. This situation requires unconditional rectification and the quality and pace of such changes will largely shape the overall course of the democratic transition of our society.”
03-05-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić passed a decision ordering the Public Enterprise “Aerodrom Nikola Tesla” to provide information on entertainment expenses and possible “management” bonuses for the enterprise's top management. This effectively ended the proceedings initiated by complaints lodged with the Commissioner for Information by the Administrative Committee of the National Assembly against ten enterprises and institutions (Public Enterprise “Aerodrom Nikola Tesla”, Public Enterprise NIS Petrol, Public Enterprise Elektroprivreda Srbije, Public Enterprise NIS -Novi Sad, Public Enterprise for Ski Resorts, Flight Control Agency, Public Enterprise Transnafta Pančevo, Building Inspectorate of Serbia, Public Enterprise “Putevi Srbije” and Radio Television of Serbia) for denial of access to information. Nine of them provided the requested information immediately after the Commissioner's intervention, and the Commissioner has suspended or will suspend proceedings against them.
In connection with this, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said:
“The fact that these complaints were lodged at all, regardless of their outcome, is deeply disturbing. And that the Administrative Committee of the Parliament faces problems when attempting to obtain information of this kind is suggestive, not only from the aspect of the Law on Free Access to Information, but of proper functioning of institutions as well.
From the aspect of freedom of information, the denial of information to a Parliamentary Committee is literally absurd and sends a discouraging message to those who would like to use their right enshrined in the Constitution and the law, but whose power and authority are, of course, measured on a much smaller scale.
All information on the disposal of financial and other public resources is information of paramount public importance. The public at large, indeed every single citizen, has the right to access such information. The public is legitimately, and apparently very keenly, interested in this kind of information, and not without good cause. Any denial of this information only feeds the already existing doubts, justified or not, as to the legality and purposefulness of disposal of public assets. It would therefore be useful and logical for all persons entrusted with public resources, even without a formal obligation under the law, to try and make such information available to the public as much as possible.
A good way to do this, to make information accessible even before somebody specifically requests it, is to publish it in relevant directories of activities posted on official electronic presentations of public institutions, enterprises or authorities. The publication of these directories is, by the way, a duty imposed by the law on all public authorities and organizations vested with public powers. Unfortunately, I have to use this opportunity to reiterate that, even though statistics seem to indicate certain improvements, overall we cannot be satisfied with the level of compliance with this obligation.”
24-04-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić met with H.E. Igor Furdik, Ambassador of Slovakia in Belgrade, to discuss the issues and results in achieving free access to information of public importance.
On this occasion, Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić said:
“We touched upon a number of issues concerning the control of government's operations, in particular the fight against abuse and corruption. Ambassador Furdik showed he was very familiar with our situation and expressed his interest in improving our cooperation.
It pleased me to hear from the Ambassador words of high praise for the Commissioner and activities of his Office, and what pleases me even more is the Embassy's expressed willingness to further intensify our cooperation with Slovakian institutions responsible for enforcing the freedom of access to information of public importance.
The suggestions for intensified cooperation are particularly interesting considering the fact that Slovakia is undergoing the transition process very successfully, which can be attributed, among other things, to its effective and efficient affirmation of the freedom of information. By improving the transparency of government's operations, Slovakia built an efficient public control and thus achieved very good results in its fight against abuse and corruption. As results of this kind are essential for Serbia, all opportunities to draw on best practices of other countries are more than welcome.”
17-04-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for the information of public importance passed the decisions today by which it ordered television studios RTS (National Television) and Studio B to submit to Transparentost Srbija which had requested the information, that is, to make public the data that relate to the financing of the election campaign for the presidential elections that had taken place in February of this year.
This concerns the data that relate to the price for the rendered services that had been agreed with the presidential candidates, the amounts that had been paid, that is, those that had remained as a debt, and the manner of payment, that is, whether they had been paid from special accounts for the financing of the campaign or in some other way.
In connection with that, the Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic stated:
“At first sight it may seem unusual that the Commissioner for Information is ordering the media to make information public. According to the standard logic, the media, particularly the public services, are expected to make information public even when nobody is requesting that. Nonetheless, in this case it was not so, which therefore made the passing of these decisions both necessary and legally justifiable.
The Radio Television of Serbia and Studio B are, pursuant to Article 3 of the Law on the Free Access to Information bodies of the public authorities. In line with that, in principle, all the data created in the course of their operations or related to their operations represent information of public importance. I think that in the concrete case the obligation to provide information is strengthened by the fact that the subject of the request are information for which there is a particular interest of the public.
Even if there hadn't been any formal legal obligation, the public domain of these information would be supported by at least three important points. First, the need to preserve the legitimacy of the democratic election process whose initial and basic supposition is legal financing of each and every election campaign. Second, the need to change something in connection with the present and growing disbelief of the citizens concerning the legitimacy of the financing of various election processes which is constantly fed by the low level of transparency. The third reason is the need to achieve far better results in the fight against corruption. It's a well known thing that these results could be achieved, along with applying all other available means, primarily by enabling as wide control of the public as possible. It is for this reason that we need to do everything in order to make all the information, which are or could be relevant in the context of corruption, maximally available to the public.”
09-04-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The Commissioner for the information of public importance has received numerous complaints against a group of state-owned enterprises and agencies submitted by the Administrative Committee of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, related to the withholding of the information on the representational costs and on the so-called “managerial fringe benefits.” The Commissioner has assessed that the fact that the body such as the Administrative Committee of the Assembly, in a short period and for the second time, had to request from the Commissioner for Information the protection of the rights, goes to show that there is a very worrying position which managements in numerous state-owned enterprises show towards the rights of the public guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. The Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic particularly stressed the following:
“This situation reflects either a basic ignorance of the contents of the Law on Free Access to Information and the rights guaranteed by this law or, which is even worse, a conscious and intentional ignoring of the proper legal obligations by some state-owned enterprises.
The law on free access to information stipulates that everybody has the right to have, in principle, any information created in the course of the operations or related to the operations of a government agency made available to him/her.
Other than the state bodies, bodies of the autonomous province and local self-governments, respectively, the law stipulates that the notion of a government agency also covers the subjects to whom public authorities have been delegated and the legal entities whose founder and financier is the state. This means that public enterprises and other state-owned enterprises have the same obligations towards the public as the bodies of the state authorities.
If this was not clear to somebody at the beginning of the enforcement of the law, it should certainly be so after three years. This is the reason why I recently assessed as absurd the situation in which many state-owned enterprises submitted their data on the salaries of their management to the Administrative Committee only after interventions and the order of the Commissioner for Information. Nonetheless, it is for the second time and in a short period that they withhold from the parliamentary Administrative Committee the data which by the law must be available to the widest public.
On this occasion, the withholding of the information was not even done with references to some reasons, such as “confidentiality” or “secrecy” of the data, regardless of the obvious lack of grounds for such reasons. The requests were simply ignored, although this is, by the law, inadmissible and actionable. By expressing such position towards the request of a body such as the parliamentary Administrative Committee, an unambiguous message is sent on a complete lack of readiness to respond to possible similar, justified requests of the citizens and the media which are based on the law.”
02-04-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner to the information of the public importance submitted the report about the enforcement of the law about the free access to the information of the public importance in the year 2007, to the National Parliament of the Republic of Serbia.
Information from the report are showing that the right on the free access to the information is been used much more often. Reports of the state authorities, submitted to Commissioner, are showing that the number of the requests for the information, directed to the state authorities in all levels, is 50% higher than the previous year, and about 4,5 higher than the year 2005. The biggest interest this year also is for the information, which are or could be related to the irrational disposition of the public founds, misuse or corruption (disposition of the budget found, public provisions, privatization, investments, salaries and number of employees and similar)
Information of the relation of the state authorities to the duties, according to the law, delivery of the report to Commissioner, announcing the informer about the work and training of the stuff, are also showing the progress comparing to the previous year.
During the year 2007 the Commissioner service was working on 2367 subjects (1708 received during the year and plus 659 from the previous). 1539 subjects were solved, and 828 were passed in the year 2008. Number of unsolved cases is 30% higher comparing to the previous year, but still, because of the inadequate accommodation, Commissioner service is working with the one third of the employees, and besides the maximal engagement, number of cases should have been transferred to the next year.
On the account of the Report for the year 2007 Commissioner, Rodoljub Šabić, specially emphasized:
„It is good and encouraging that statistics are showing that the degree of the enforcement of the law about the free access to the information of public importance is growing. But, in no relations to that, the fact is that the state authorities in all levels didn't do many things that could and should have been done. Due to that the opportunity to affirm the public right to know is missed, and by that the possibility to have far more effective fight against irrationality, misused, corruption and similar.
Especially it is concerning that even the chronicle, totally evident problems, at which I pointed out even in the reports for the year 2005 and 2006, weren't moved. I think that after three years “pushing under the carpet“, minimum is necessary, without which it is hard to keep what's done so far, that Government, their authorized Ministries and Offices finally activate mechanisms of responsibility for braking the law and for forced render of execution of the decision of Commissioner, as well as to render necessary, above all, space conditions for work of Commissioner and his service.“
Note: text of the report can be taken from the column "Reports"
26-03-2008...................................................................................................................................
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
Source: Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
Commissioner to the information of public importance, Rodoljub Šabić, attended today the official presentation of the Informer about the work of the Chamber of Economy in Serbia. Commissioner evaluated that the announcement of the Informer about the work on the official electronic presentation of the biggest association of the economist in our country, is huge contribution to the affirmation of the public right, and is showing very good example that many should follow with the reason.
In the relation to that Commissioner specially emphasized:
“Duty of announcing this document was fortified with the law for all state authorities, other words, subjects to whom public authority is trusted. Unfortunately, many of them are not accomplishing it, or they are accomplishing but formally and incorrectly. Informer about the work of the Chamber of the Economy is a good example of the really correct relation to this law obligation. Contents, dimension of information and their updating are showing that it is not just about the formal execution of duty, but about the effort to give the public all, or as many information about the status, organization and actions of the Chamber, about its authorities, about disposition of the financial and other means etc, as needed.
This informer is not just showing the correct relation to the law obligation, but more than that, about how the Chamber of the Economy understands and is ready to answer on the requests of the modern, informatical age in which the modern society is living, whose part we want to be. In modern, informatical society, about real qualities and potentials of each subject, especially those who posses the public authority, or are disposing with the public founds, their readiness and capability to show the public their work, any time, above all, is the best way of showing the responsibility and to have, or to confirm trust.
I accept, because it would be very useful, that the good example of the Chamber of Economy is fallowed by many. Especially it would be grate that those who are disposing with even more public authorities or public founds, do it as well. Those from which it is expected, after three years from the beginning of the enforcement of the law about the free access to the information, with all rights, that according to the public right begin to show the relation which would be more adequate to the law and time we live in.“
18-03-2008