Commissioner for Information of Public Importance

MEDIA ARCHIVES

JAT SUES SABIC FOR AIRBUS
Source: Glas javnosti

JAT SUES SABIC FOR AIRBUS

Serbian airline company JAT keeps secret the controversial agreement on the purchase of aircrafts from the French. Claiming that it is a business secret, Manager Nebojsa Starcevic refused to reveal the conditions under which JAT is to buy eight Airbus aircrafts even to the Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance.

BELGRADE - Making Serbia a legal state in which the law and decisions of public authorities will be respected without exceptions and in which citizens will be sure that bureaucracy cannot stand in the way of exercising their rights was the main pillar of the Prime Minister Kostunica's mandate. In addition to adopting the Constitution, the Government made another major step and adopted the concept according to which the power comes from the people and therefore the people has the right to control the power, which resulted in passing the Free Access to the Information of Public Importance Act and appointing the Information Commissioner, Rodoljub Sabic. However, although by institutionalizing this right the government showed its commitment to bring the democracy and transparency it advocates in its current pre-election campaign “in style”, in practice it seems that civil servants are free to disobey the law as they please. The latest example is the refusal of JAT Airways to oblige the daily Glas and make public the contract with the European manufacturer of Airbus aircrafts signed in 1998 during Milosevic's regime, in spite of the legally binding resolution of the Information Commissioner. Considering that many high officials claim that this contract is detrimental to Serbia and that JAT's Manager Nebojsa Starcevic denied the claims of the Minister for Capital Investment Velimir Ilic that according to the contract JAT cannot buy aircrafts made by any other manufacturer but Airbus, Glas has requested a copy of this document in order to enable the public to find out the truth about its content eight years after its signing. However, JAT, claiming that the contract is a business secret, refused to submit its copy, which it was consequently obliged to do as per resolution of Commissioner Sabic. Although the three-day deadline for the submission of the document expired a few days ago, Glas did not get a reply. Instead, JAT's management decided to send, as they say, the “reply to the resolution”, in which they asked Sabic to pass an interim measure which would postpone the execution of the resolution. JAT did not want to reveal on what grounds they asked for the postponement and whether they intend to start the proceedings before the Serbian Supreme Court, while Starcevic was not available for comment. If we ignore the fact that the Commissioner is not legally authorized to pass interim measures, which the national airline company should know, there is no denying that JAT refused, of its own accord, to carry out the order of a national regulatory body, showing again how much the law is respected in Serbia. Is such obstinacy a result of the conviction of JAT's management that the government of Vojislav Kostunica will not obey the law and force them to act upon the Commissioner's resolution or is it an act of defiance to Minister Ilic, who advised the reporter of Glas to request the document from JAT is now irrelevant. It is interesting though that in its reply to the complaint of Glas, JAT also mentioned that its fleet is financed by JAT alone, disputing the right of tax payers to know the details of the contract. Let us remind the readers that JAT has, in many of its public appearances, reiterated that it does not have the funds to finance the contract with Airbus, which makes the claims of JAT's reply to the complaint untrue. JAT finished last year with a huge loss a debt of around 200 million Euros. National airliner also referred to French legislation and the damage to the reputation of Airbus if the contract was made public, and claimed that Glas has abused the right to the information by requesting a several thousand pages long contract.

Antrfile: Unacceptable accusations

Information Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic says that some important sections of the contract have been published before.

- However, this does not mean that the contract does not contain the information which is not of public interest, or that there is no information that should remain secret. JAT has done something unbelievable by denying the legal right of the Commissioner to view the contract in the process of deliberation and conditioning it with the consent of the foreign partner. It is unacceptable that a foreign company should have any impact on the application of Serbian laws and at the time I was, because of that and a number of other reasons, sure that I had to pass the resolution I passed. It was after my resolution that the Manager of JAT requested the postponement of the execution of my order because JAT had brought charges before the Supreme Court of Serbia. The Commissioner is not authorized to do that, which is why I forwarded JAT's request to the Government, says Sabic, adding that the stand of this court has so far been that the lawsuits of public utilities against the Commissioner's resolutions are unacceptable.

28-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

BIA DID NOT FOLLOW ORDERS
Source: Danas

Decision of the Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance may be an international precedent

BIA did not follow orders

Exactly a year ago, acting as Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance, I signed a resolution that attracted great public attention. It was a resolution on ordering the Security and Intelligence Agency (in Serbian: Bezbednosno-informativna agencija - BIA) to give the NGO Youth Initiative for Human Rights the information about the number of people whose communications were monitored in 2005.

In accordance with the law, the Youth Initiative for Human Rights made a formal request to the Security and Intelligence Agency. The law prescribes that the requested piece of information must be provided to the claimant within 15 days or rejected in a legal way; BIA failed to either. To reject a request legally means to pass a resolution containing legal reasons for rejection, a rationale and a legal remedy concerning the concrete matter. BIA only sent a short, informal memo to the claimant saying that it was not able to provide the requested information as this was contrary to Article 9 Paragraph 5 of the Free Access to the Information of Public Importance Act. The memo was not signed by the Director or the authorized person but by the third person, which is contrary to the same law.

It was obvious from the start that BIA had ignored practically all provisions of the law concerning actions that should be taken when access to information is requested. However, more interesting than the procedure itself was whether BIA's reference to Article 9 Paragraph 5 was justified. This provision, among other provisions of this law, envisages that a government body may refuse to provide a requested piece of information if this “will provide access to a piece of information or a document that, pursuant to a law-based regulation or official document, should be kept confidential as a state, official, business or other secret, i.e. it should accessible only to a specified group of people, and if its disclosure may cause serious legal or other damage to the interests protected by the law which outweigh the interest in getting access to information”.

Therefore, in addition to the condition that the information or document must be a state, official, business or other secret, in order to restrict public access to information there is another condition, that its disclosure may cause serious legal or other consequences.

Having found that providing access to a piece of information for a limited, small number of will not cause any, especially serious harm, I concluded that the complaint of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights was justified and passed the aforementioned resolution. Moreover, I thought that the readiness of BIA to make such a piece of information public would have a therapeutic effect on our public, which still carries the load of traumatic experiences concerning misuses by secret services.

According to Article 28 of the Free Access to Information Act, resolutions of the The Commissioner are legally binding and, when necessary, their execution is ensured by the Serbian Government. Nevertheless, BIA failed to carry out the order, and the Serbian Government failed to ensure its execution, as requested by the Youth Initiative. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Serbia rejected the complaint filed by BIA against the Commissioner's resolution. The matter stopped there and, with time, drifted to oblivion.

However, the whole incident has recently resurfaced when something similar happened in Montenegro. A few months ago, the Montenegrin Administrative Court, acting as per complaint of the NGO Affirmation Network (MANS) annulled the resolution of the National Security Agency (ANB) on rejecting the request to make public the information about the number of persons whose communications were monitored in 2005. Serbian public may find it interesting that in the court proceedings, MANS referred to the fact that an identical situation, Serbian Information Commissioner ordered that the information be given to the claimant and that the Serbian Supreme Court rejected BIA's complaint against the resolution. Montenegrin Administrative Court did not want to try in the dispute of “full jurisdiction” and did not competently resolve the matter to the very end. However, it did annul the ANB's resolution as illegal, as “there was no proof that disclosure of the requested information would cause more damage to the interests of national security than the public interest in its publicising” and ordered ANB to pass a new resolution.

It goes without saying that we were also interested in the final outcome. In fact, one of the possible scenarios was indeed curios. The resolution of the Serbian Commissioner might become a “precedent” on the international level, although it was not acted upon in the country of its origin. It would be rather difficult to find a similar example, which is why I waited for the outcome in Montenegro with great anticipation. And a few days ago ANB made public, i.e. provided MANS with the information that 45 persons were tapped and 5 persons were under surveillance in Montenegro in 2005.

I am not aware to what extent Montenegrins the decision of the Serbian Commissioner really affected the final decision-making. However, what happened in Montenegro is, indeed, interesting to us - not because it will or will not affect the situation in Serbia but because of other, more important reasons. First, because the event was in fact a new, very important experience in the affirmation of the right to free access to information and participation of the public in the civil control of secret services and then, because the time will show that disclosure of this piece of information did not harm national security. Sooner or later, these experiences will undoubtedly be useful to us too. Written by Information Commissioner

26-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

I DO NOT FEAR REPLACEMENT
Source: Večernje novosti

I do not fear replacement

N. CALUKOVIC, 25 December 2006

Serbia has “celebrated” two years since the National Parliament for the first time in its history appointed the first Information Commissioner and joined the league of modern democratic countries. Analysing the results achieved in this period, Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic, talking to the daily Novosti, says that it is not exactly his place to evaluate his own work.

- I'll just say that, according to the reports of independent non-government monitoring agencies, as well as OSCE, Council of Europe and EU Commission, the results are good. Very good, in fact.

What was your biggest challenge?

- In spite of all my efforts, I did not succeed in getting the responsible authorities to activate mechanisms of accountability and supervision or propose some necessary complementary laws, such as those regulating classification of confidential information, protection of privacy, or opening of secret files.

How many citizens have so far complained to the Commissioner about a government body failing to adhere to the Free Access to Information of Public Importance Act?

- In 2005, over 450 cases were registered by the Commissioner's Bureau. This year, there will probably be around 2000, most of which are citizens' complains.

Have any citizens benefited from their complaints?

- Some 65 per cent of complaints have already been resolved. I know that many people have benefited from that.

The Constitutional Act prescribes the appointment of the new Commissioner immediately after the parliamentary elections. Do you fear replacement?

- The Constitutional Act is vague - it is not exactly clear if it envisages the appointment of the new Commissioner or not. In any case, I do not fear replacement.

Who would want you to leave?

- Those who want to hide from the public their own incompetence, misuses, crimes and corruption.

POPOVIC AND BULATOVIC

Which public official - do you think - sets an example for respecting the law?

- It's Aleksandar Popovic.

And who, according to you, needs improvement in the area?

- Rade Bulatovic.

26-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONER RODOLJUB SABIC
Source: Glas javnosti

LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONER RODOLJUB SABIC

Dear Mr Sabic,

We are writing with a wish to express our gratitude and praise for your work and the work of your assistants, especially Ms Gordana Sunjevaric and Ms Natalija Cetkovic.

We would particularly like to emphasise that we are aware of the importance of the new Free Access to Information of Public Importance Act, your hard work in the application of this law and selfless help that you have given us, Serbian citizens, as we are the ones having to deal with harassment at the windows of government agencies on daily basis.

You and your team have brought a little light into the Serbian “darkness”, where representatives of public authorities behave as if they were lords, the only masters holding the proof of the truth, which, by no means, must reach ordinary people. They probably do not think that we deserve the truth as we have swallowed all the lies we have been served so far and that no one ever had to bear consequences for.

The management and most of the members of the Serbian Restitution Network have lived as the second-rate citizens in Serbia for over six decades, which is why our gratitude and the respect we have for you is even greater. In accordance with the Reporting and Registration Act, in 2005 and 2006 we were forced to collect all the papers in order to prove all the methods in which our property was taken from us after the World War II. We would not have been able to do this if you and your team had not helped us by implementing the Law we were quoting.

You must have made many enemies on all government levels because you constantly and consistently insisted on the application of this law. We, original owners, were the ones who felt all the weight of the fifty-year long single-mindedness. Communists were taking “in the name of the people”, those that have the power today, in spite of repeatedly saying that “it is fair to right the wrongs” are giving away our property to the privileged individuals and thus not only denying our ownership but also our physical existence.

Dear Mr Sabic,

You are the best proof that it is actually possible that a single person can change the course of history. If all politicians had your conscious and if they were less self-centred and megalomaniac while performing their public duties hundreds of people in Serbia would now be spared poverty.

If you are revealed from the duty of the Commissioner, Serbian citizens will lose again and the political-criminal lobby that holds Serbia hostage and as far from the normal world as possible will win again.

There are many people who want to but cannot do anything to make things better. There are those who can but do not want to do anything. Rare are those who can and want to do something to change things for the better. You belong to the third, smallest group of people in Serbia. With your honest work you have entered one of the more positive pages in our history, at the beginning of the new century. At this moment, few are those who can join you there.

On behalf of all members of the Serbian Restitution Network and on our own behalf, we are sending our warmest regards, wishing that you continue with the same force to make changes in the application of the law that you have started.

24-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

PRECENDENT (PART 2)
Source: Blic

PRECEDENT (Part 2)

Rodoljub Sabic, Information Commissioner

In the text entitled “Precedent”, recently published in Blic, I wrote about how the Montenegrin Administrative Court, in the dispute between the Network for Affirmation of Non-Government Sector (MANS) and National Security Agency (ANB), annulled the resolution of the National Security Agency on rejecting the request to make public the information about the number of people whose communications were monitored in 2005. MANS referred to the similar case in Serbia, where the Information Commissioner ordered BIA to provide the requested information, and that BIA's complaint against the order was rejected by the Serbian Supreme Court. The court in Podgorica annulled the ANB's resolution as illegal, as “there was no proof that revealing the requested information would cause more damage to the interests of national security than the public interest in its publicising” and ordered ANB to pass a new resolution. Everyone here waited for the new resolution in great anticipation, as the outcome could have been rather curious to us: the decision of the Serbian Commissioner would be used as a “precedent” on the international level, although it was not acted upon in the country of its origin. ANB obliged MANS with the requested information. The public was informed that communications of 45 persons were monitored and that the movement of 5 persons was under surveillance in Montenegro in 2005. I cannot tell if what ANB has done will have an effect on the execution of the Serbian Commissioner's resolution. It is obvious, though, that Montenegro has made a serious step towards demystification of work of government agencies and that it did not do any harm to its national security.

23-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

NO ONE GETS PUNISHED WHEN THE STATE WITHHOLDS THE INFORMATION
Source: Glas javnosti

No one gets punished when the state witholds the information

Rodoljub Sabic on his experiences as the Information Commissioner

Although the number of people seeking the protection of the Commissioner is constantly growing, Serbian Government failed to administer his resolution.

BELGRADE - On the occasion of marking two years since the Commissioner's Bureau was established, Information Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic said yesterday that there has been improvement in the application of the Free Access to Information Act, but that there are still more reasons to be concerned about than proud of.

In the interview given to the Beta agency, Sabic warned that even two years later there are still no active mechanisms that would ensure quality application of the law or necessary complementary regulations, which are of key importance for the application of the Free Access to Information of Public Importance Act.

- The problems were observed long ago, but they have not been resolved yet. Supervision and accountability mechanisms are not functional. In practice, no action was taken at the request of the competent Ministry of Culture and no one was processed or penalised for the violation of the Free Access to Information Act, says Sabic. The Commissioner added that the Minister for Culture Dragan Kojadinovic informed him that “they have finally started to file requests for the infringement of proceedings”.

Sabic says that the mechanism for the execution of The Commissioner's decisions is not functional either, which, according to the law, is the Government's responsibility. Whenever citizens or the media asked the Serbian Government to administer the resolution of the Commissioner, the Government failed to do so.

- As for the executive power, the problems are, unfortunately, rather obvious - surveillance, accountability, administration of The Commissioner's decisions, education of citizens and civil servants are in the hands of executive power and so far it has not acted appropriately, says Sabic.

According to Sabic, the support that the Commissioner's Bureau receives from civil society is solid. He adds that both the citizens and the media have given positive assessment of the work of the Bureau.

The Commissioner points out that the authorities should clarify the “vague” wording of the provision of the Constitutional Act concerning a body of a “strange name” which is responsible for the administration of citizens' right to information.

- This body should actually control whether the media are meeting their obligations. I am against such a concept. Everything that concerns the media falls, in my opinion, in the sphere of freedoms. The media freely gather and disseminate information and you cannot tell them what to do, says Sabic.

Asked if he expected a new Commissioner to be appointed after the parliamentary elections in January, Sabic says he is the wrong person to answer this question, adding that he will stay in the anti-corruption council, regardless of whether he stays there as a government official or as a lawyer.

Sabic also reminded us that last year, over 450 people sought help from the Commissioner's Bureau and that by the end of this year this number will have more than quadrupled, which shows how public trust in this institution has grown and that more and more citizens seek and get assistance from the Commissioner.

Sabic added that over 65 per cent of the cases have already been resolved and that none of The Commissioner's decisions were annulled by the Supreme Court of Serbia. As for the budget, Sabic says that the Commissioner's Bureau has spent 12 of 31 million Dinars from the allocated funds.

Antrfile: Everything's a secret

Sabic also pointed to the laws that are yet to be adopted in order to round up regulations in the field of accessibility to information.

- We actually do not know what a state, an official or a business secret is and this is why the secrecy is often misused or at least there are attempts to misuse it. Sometimes, these attempts are made in order to obstruct the right to free access to information, says Sabic.

22-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

WITHHOLDING INFORMATION CONCEALS CRIME, CORRUPTION AND LACK OF COMPETENCE
Source: Danas

INTERVIEW with Rodoljub Sabic, Serbian Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance

Witholding information conceals crime, corruption and lack of competence

Milos M. Miloradovic

When the Free Access to Information Act was passed, everybody thought it would bring order to the Serbian political scene, as politicians' work will be under close scrutiny of Serbian citizens. It has been two years since the appointment of Rodoljub Sabic as the first Serbian Information Commissioner. In the interview to the daily Danas, Sabic says that he is pleased with what has been done in his field. However, he says, the authorities find it hard to accept that in addition to the obligation to provide the information when the public requests it there is also the obligation to provide access to certain information even when the public does not explicitly request it.

Foreign investment

You reacted to the Foreign Investment Bill. Why?

- I reacted to the idea of needing the consent of the foreign investor and completely excluding the possibility of public access to the information about foreign investment. There is no doubt that some information concerning foreign investment may and should have a certain level of secrecy, but it should not be absolute and it should not apply to all information. The idea of putting the application of a domestic law completely in hands of a foreign investor is not only irritating as being a semi-colonial in nature, but also as being open to an indefinite number of interpretations of the concept of foreign investment, that - by eliminating the public - it leaves the door wide open for corruption to enter. At the time, in the discussion with the President of the Parliament, he assured me that such a bill will never be included in the Parliamentary agenda. So far, he has been right, but we'll see what happens in the future.

- The assessment of our results as good, in fact very good, was given by a number of objective observers. It can be found in the reports on the application of the law, such as those by the observers from the non-government sector - OSCE, Council of Europe, EU Commission - as well as by journalists' associations and my colleagues, people who deal with the same or similar issues.

I think that the facts make best argument for such an assessment. For instance, in 2005, the Commissioner's Bureau received over 450 complaints and in 2006 there were around 1900, more than four times as many. Over 65 per cent of those complaints have already been resolved. This shows that the trust of Serbian citizens in this government body has increased, that they seek our assistance in the protection of their rights and that they actually get the protection they need. All disputes based on complaints against the Commissioner's resolutions and processed before the Serbian Supreme Court have been resolved. All complaints have been rejected. As much as it was objectively possible, a lot has been done in the field of education of citizens and civil servants. A great step forward was made by passing the new Constitution which guarantees the right to access information. The Bureau did good work, although it employs four times as few people as the National Parliament had approved. A very good Legal Guide was published in Serbian and seven languages of national minorities, including the Romany, which, I think, is a unique case.

Another important detail is that the Bureau has been spending the allocated funds very economically. The Commissioner and his Bureau will save over 50 per cent of allocated funds this year - out of the allocated 31 million Dinars, only some 12 million Dinars were spent by November. In addition to the Commissioner's activities, there are many more other activities that are as important for the application of the Free Access to Information Act that we are not happy about and, frankly, that cause more reasons to be concerned about than proud of.

Has raising citizens' awareness of the right to be informed been successful, and how much has it contributed to changing the status quo, regardless of the problems encountered on the way?

- Yes, citizens, NGOs and the media increasingly exercise their right to access information. This pro-active approach has already given good results on various levels, such as combating corruption, protection of various human rights, environment protection, etc. The potential of the law has been confirmed, but I do think that it is not used as much as we would like it to be.

Although it was asked over thirty times to administer the Commissioner's decisions but the Serbian Government failed to act on a single request. Why?

- According to the law, The Commissioner's decisions are legally binding for all government bodies and, if necessary, Serbian Government should ensure that the decisions are administered. Many decisions have been administered by the government bodies voluntarily. However, you are right to say that the Government was asked to ensure that the decisions are carried out on a couple of dozen occasions and that the Government failed to do so in all cases. Why - that's the question for the Government, nor for me. By the way, I have appealed to the Government twice to create an efficient mechanism for the administration of The Commissioner's decisions, but my initiative was ignored.

A couple of months ago you said that the authorities had failed to do their task with regard to the law application. Have things changed since?

- Of course they have, they have been changing for two years now. The problem is that things do not change as quickly as they should. The government obviously cannot comprehend that apart from the obligation to provide the information when the public requests it there is also the obligation to provide access to certain information even when the public does not request it. The way I see it is that in the country burdened with corruption the information that should be made public is the information about the management of public financial resources. Such information should be accessible at any given moment, including being published on the Internet. In my opinion, such an approach could give great results in combating corruption. In the recent talks with the representatives of World Bank they agreed with me. As for education, we have so far collaborated with the non-government sector. A number of seminars, round tables, radio and TV programmes have been organised in co-operation with the OSCE Mission to Serbia, members of the NGO Coalition for Free Access to Information, Open Society Fund, Transparency Serbia, CESID, Association of US Lawyers. Progress has been made, but a training programme for civil servants that is defined and coordinated on the state level is definitely lacking. This is, in fact, one of the conclusions, and recommendations, of the latest GRECO (Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption) reports. As regards education and training, I have also suggested to the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government to incorporate the exercise of the right to access information in the state exam. To date, this initiative has been ignored as well.

It is a fact that the government bodies still fail to meet all their obligations. What is the problem - is it ignorance or irresponsibility?

- Both. But, without a doubt, there must be another reason too. By withholding the information they often try to hide their own incompetence, misuse, even crime and corruption.

Serbia is one of 13 countries that have a Commissioner as an independent body. However, you cannot administer your own decisions. How do you think this issue could be resolved?

- It is very important that there is a will to execute those decisions. If there were no will to do that it would not matter whether the administration of the Commissioner's decisions were ensured by the Government, as is the case in Serbia, or the Commissioner was granted more extensive authorisation, as is the case in other countries.

You have often spoken about the lack of laws that the good application of the Free Access to Information Act depends on. What laws did you have in mind?

- Yes, the fact that we have no modern laws harmonised with the EU standards that would govern the classification of secret information and protection of privacy is our great disadvantage. This will present an even greater problem in the application of the Access to Information Act, as well in the EU integration and Euro-Atlantic integration processes. The problem, which we should really be embarrassed about, is that Serbia is one of the last post-socialist countries that has not passed a law that regulates the treatment of files of secret intelligence services.

Slovenian experience

Slovenian Information Commissioner has recently paid us a visit. It turns out that there are five as many people working in the Slovenian Commissioner's Bureau than in the Serbian one.

- Yes, something like that. Slovenia is much smaller than Serbia, does not have as many problems as we do, but its Commissioner's Bureau employs much more people. Besides, the Slovenian Commissioner has a larger budget at his disposal and greater authorities. This, of course, does not only reflect Slovenian attitude to the Commissioner, but also their attitude to the law regulating access to information. It also shows their commitment to apply European laws consistently. Slovenia, a former communist country, in that respect certainly stands out. In addition to this, Slovenia recognises the importance of transparency for the smooth progress of democratic transition. The efficiency of Slovenian EU integration project and its results in fighting corruption are the best examples of how the transition process should be managed.

21-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

MYSTERIOUS MEMO
Source: Danas

With reference to the text “Further Examinations Prolongue the Process”

Mysterious receipt

I have no intention to get myself involved in the public debate with Milovan Bozovic, District Public Prosecutor in Belgrade. However, considering that he mentions The Commissioner's name and the Commissioner's Bureau and expresses his legal opinions that may be relevant in the application of the Free Access to Information Act, all in a context flooded with misleading information, it is simply my duty to react.

In reference to the access to the information owned by the Public Prosecutor's Office, saying the relevant lex specialis is the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than the Free Access to Information Act is simply groundless and shows a complete lack of knowledge about free access to information. This means that the Criminal Code would be lex specialis for one person, Customs Act for another, Tax Act yet for another person and so on, while the Free Access to Information Act would probably only serve as decoration. The Code of Criminal Proceedings is lex specialis in the criminal law issues, not in the field of access to information. When it comes to the access to information, regardless of which government body holds the information, the Free Access to Information Act is the applicable law, not any other law. As for possible restriction of the access to information, the reasons prescribed by this - not any other - law should be referred to. I would like to remind the readers about the joint resolution of high representatives for human rights and freedom of the media, the highest level international organisations of states, UN, OSCE and the Organisation of American States, which explicitly says that in case there are inconsistencies between the Free Access to Information Act and any other law, the former will overweigh the latter.

I do not want to talk about the attempts of the Public Prosecutor's Office to prove that the memos sent to NUNS and the Commissioner where about something they were not about. I do not want to talk about my dilemma about the reasons why the Public Prosecutor's Office rejected the request of NUNS - whether the reasons were those quoted in the memo or some other reasons that they referred to later on. But I have to react to the irresponsible and unfair attempt to drive the Commissioner into a lie by making less of the issue of a mysterious memo that the Prosecutor's Office used to prove it had done something it had not actually done. This is, I believe, the Public Prosecutor's Attempt to diminish the importance of the memo sent to NUNS and to the Commissioner saying that “the Commissioner has received the memo through the 'memo book' on 10 July 2006, which means that the copy of the receipt - whatever its content - was irrelevant...".

Indeed, the Public Prosecutor's Office did submit something - through the memo book - to the Commissioner on 10 July, but it was not supposed to be proven by receipt. However, the attempt of the Public Prosecutor's Office to link the mysterious memo to another event is absolutely unacceptable.

With the receipt in question the Prosecutor's Office wanted to prove another thing. In fact, in the memo sent to the Commissioner on 12. 10. 2006, reference number A No. 662/06, which the PPO is now not mentioning PPO claimed that it submitted some sort of answer to the Commissioner on 16. 08. 2006, that the Commissioner received it on 21. 08. 2006 and proved it with this mysterious receipt.

The truth, at least for me, is worrying - PPO did not send any memos to the Commissioner on those dates, let alone that the Commissioner received them. In this context - and not any other that the Public Prosecutor is trying to put it in - the use of the mysterious receipt is indicative and, in any case, is not “irrelevant”.
This is why I believe it would be best to cut this polemic short with as little possible damage to the reputation of the Public Prosecutor's Office as possible. The best way to do this is that the Public Prosecutor, if he can and if he dares, publicly confirm that it is true that the PPO sent a “reply” to the Commissioner on 16.08.2006 and that the Commissioner received it on 21.08.2006. If this cannot be done it would do if he only said that this was not true and to refrain from explanations such as “error” or “irrelevant”. Written by the Information Commissioner

20-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

PRECEDENT
Source: Blic

PRECEDENT

Rodoljub Sabic, Information Commissioner

A few months ago, the Montenegrin Administrative Court, acting on the complaint of the NGO Affirmation Network (MANS) annulled the resolution of the National Security Agency (ANB) on rejecting the request to make public the information about the number of tapped persons in 2005. Serbian public may find it interesting that in the court proceedings MANS referred to the fact that in an identical situation, the Serbian Information Commissioner ordered that the information should be given to the claimant and that the Serbian Supreme Court rejected BIA's complaint against the resolution. Montenegrin Administrative Court did not want to try in the dispute of “full jurisdiction” and did not competently resolve the matter to the very end. However, it did cancel the ANB's resolution as illegal, as “there was no proof that revealing the requested information would cause greater damage to the interests of national security than the public interest in its publicising” and ordered ANB to pass a new resolution. What the new resolution will be remains to be seen. In any case, one of the possible scenarios is indeed curios. The resolution of the Serbian Commissioner may become a “precedent” on the international level, although it was not acted upon in the country of its origin. It is hard to find a similar example. At first glance, it may seem attractive, even flattering and satisfying to be the “owner” of a rare and rather interesting precedent. However, for the application of the Free Access to Information Act it is more important that the things happen in a logical, regular and normal manner. This is why at second, more serious glance, it is clear that such a “precedent” would be a reason for us to worry about rather than to be proud of.

19-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

CHANGE OF SERBIAN AWARENESS ACT
Source: Glas javnosti

Change of Serbian Awareness Act

Rodoljub Sabic, Information Commissioner

Citizens are interested in everything, from the environment protection, human rights, animal rights, and most of all - money, i.e. Budget, Budget realisation, public expenditures, public procurement, donations, salaries, wages, etc.

Some two years ago Serbia got the Free Access to Information of Public Importance Act according to which citizens have the right and the possibility to ask for any information they are interested in and which concern their lives. According to the Commissioner for Free Access to the Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Sabic, this law is not just a whim and it does not serve to satisfy pure curiosity of Serbian citizens, but is one of the more important reform laws.

- The law is based on the assumption that the relation between the public and the government should completely change, i.e. that “citizens are employers” and that a democratic society is based on two simple facts. First, the power is gained and lost only at the elections. Thus, the legitimacy of the ruler depends on the people's will. Second, politics is not a grand historical process of “saving” your own people. It is a job that involves the realisation of very important projects the use of financial resource. The money is provided by the citizens who gave the legitimacy to the ruler. It is clear then that a citizen has the right to know what is happening with his vote, i.e. his money. This is where we come to the point where it is very worrying when a citizen's request is ignored.

What are citizens of Serbia most interested in?

- They are interested in everything, from environment protection, human rights, animal rights, protection of human and minority rights and other various things, even urban planning documents. There was no topic that our citizens did not want to know about, but most of all, they are interested in money. They are interested in the Budget, Budget realisation, public expenditure, public procurement, donations, salaries and wages. This is why every time such information is withheld it should cause a reason for concern. It is a fact that in 2005 the number of complaints received by the Commissioner's Bureau was 450 and that the number is growing in 2006 - by some 1700-1800 cases. This shows that the trust of citizens, the media and non-government organisations in the Commissioner's Bureau is growing.

What are your experiences as regards the application of the Free Access to Information of Public Importance Act?

- From the angle of work of a government body i.e. the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, I dare say some good results have been achieved. Even some very good ones. And these are not my words, because it would be a little arrogant for me to say that. We have received very good marks from the Council of Europe, European Commission, non-government organisations in Serbia and the media. No faults were found in our work. The number of those who think that there is a point in asking for protection of their rights and get the protection is growing. We have received acknowledgment from individuals and the media, which is also a confirmation of the fact that the information they have requested has been provided.

Should we separate the results achieved by the Commissioner from the results in the application of the Free Access to Information Act?

- The Commissioner, as important a link in the chain of application of the Law as he is, is definitely not the only one or enough for its proper functioning. There are other segments, extremely important in the application of this law, which, unfortunately, are not functioning at all. When we talk about the application of such a revolutionary law as the Free Access to Information Act, we have to bear in mind the idea it is based on, that the citizen has the right to know nearly everything about the work of the government - the idea that the government finds hard to get used to.

Aren't citizens the employer of the government?

- They are, but we have to bear in mind the history of Serbian mentality - patriarchal, communist and Milosevic-bred - which tells us that the government communicates with the citizens when and how it likes and provides only the information it wants to provide. This is why it is so hard to implement this law. It is necessary to establish a mechanism of sanctioning those who violate the law, and a mechanism of forced execution of decisions of the competent authority, when those who the decisions refer to refuse to carry them out. Unfortunately, those mechanisms are still not in place.

The Ministry of Culture and Information is responsible for the supervision of the application of this law and it is obligated to file a request for the infringement of proceedings when the situation calls for such a measure. Only my Bureau has sent hundreds of such cases. Although the number of those infringements was mcuh higher (there were thousands of them) to my knowledge the Ministry has not filed a single request for the infringement of proceedings. I must give you a positive example, though. Recently, the Magistrate's Court in Sombor fined a manager of a public utility for the violation of the Free Access to Information of Public Importance Act, but it was not at the request of the competent ministry, it was at the request of a non-government organisation, which suffered damage because the information was withheld. It happens, you see.

Kristina Vlahovic

Antrfile: Common problem

- Some cases have one specific issue in common. The Law envisages that, if necessary, when the Commissioner's order is not carried out, the Serbian Government should ensure that it is. There are a few dozen of such cases but it is indicative that, when the Government was asked to ensure that the orders were carried out, it failed to do so. This is worrying, and if we bear in mind that the Ministry of Culture and Information has failed to file a single request for the infringement of proceedings it looks very much like an invitation to violate the law, says Sabic categorically.

More willingness is necessary

- As regards the work of the Commissioner and the attitude towards his interventions and decisions, we can make some very interesting observations. Firstly, more than a half of the proceedings initiated by the parties were concluded after my first intervention. I do not pass a resolution that contains an order. What happened was that the body that the information was required from actually provided it after my first intervention. This situation could be improved with a little bit of willingness to do things immediately and the result would be citizens' satisfaction and an improved image of work of government bodies. Some complaints are groundless or illegitimate and as such rejected, but most of them are legitimate and grounded and the Commissioner passes resolutions that order the government bodies to provide the information required from them. It is a pleasant surprise that the level of discipline when it comes to carrying out the Commissioner's decisions is quite high and I must say that nearly 98 per cent of them are carried out without any problems.

16-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

HOW TO DEAL WITHOUT DOSSIERS
Source: Politika

Rehabilitation of the victims of political terror

How to deal without dossiers

It would be cynical to rehabilitate the innocent victims of political terror together with real criminals, as they did not deserve to be pushed into the company of criminals, enemies of the country and of the people in the first place.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted the Resolution on Measures for Dissolution of the Heritage of Ex-Communist Totalitarian Systems on its 23rd session in 1996. Point 9 of this document reads, “Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the initiative to put the dossiers of secret services in some ex-communist countries out for the public to view. It invites all countries to oblige to the request of those who are interested and enable the viewing of dossiers kept by their former secret services.”

Great majority of former socialist countries (nearly all of them) have done so. Not all of them in the same way. Some of them did it in a radical, some in a “softer” way. However, they all did something about it. Serbia, however, did not.

The unwillingness to resolve the problem of secret dossiers from the aspect of the desired, successful process of democratic transition is, without a doubt, a serious issue. Sometimes this unwillingness seems completely irrational, as it may obstruct achieving good results.

One of those activities has recently started - the process of court rehabilitation of victims of political and ideological terror has started. The necessary legal preconditions for the start of this process were established in April 2006 when the Serbian National Parliament adopted the Rehabilitation Act. This law has created the possibility to apply for rehabilitation and it applies to the individuals who were deprived of life, freedom or any other right due to political or ideological reasons, with or without a proper court or administrative decision.

The public was finally informed that some courts had passed first decisions on the rehabilitation of victims of political terror.

The value of rehabilitation, which is based on the principles of justice and truth, cannot be questioned. This is why all the problems arising from determining the truth cannot be underestimated or ignored. The truth is sometimes obvious, but sometimes lots of data must be gathered before the truth is determined. When we talk about the information important for the victims of political terror, most of them are definitely kept in the dossiers stored in the archives of secret services. In this context, it is a fact that these dossiers are still locked up and practically inaccessible, which is truly absurd.

However, this situation is similar to another one, something that was often characteristic of the methodology of the executioner of “revolutionary justice”. It is the custom to “treat” the victims of political terror simultaneously with real traitors and criminals. This methodology resulted in, for example, the lists of people who were executed and which contain the names of the innocent as well as of the guilty.

The fact that some people have suffered or become innocent victims only because of their different political or ideological beliefs insults the very idea of justice. And when they are forced to serve their undeserved sentences together with real traitors or criminals, the injustice becomes even more cynical.

It would be even worse if the innocent victims of political terror were rehabilitated together with those who deserved to spend time in prison. This is something that definitely needs to be prevented and something that - as long the dossiers of secret services continue to be mystified - must not be ignored. Naturally, it is logical to assume that the services that still control these files will co-operate with courts of law. However, the unpleasant experiences show that the scope and the intensity of such co-operation should not be left at the good will of these services.

Naturally, the problem of determining the truth in the process of rehabilitation of victims of political terror is not the only reason why the dossiers of secret services need a different approach. There are many reasons why these dossiers should be made available, such as the fact that many painful issues that still bother us from the past should be closed down, that a new, democratic value system should be built, that the fundamental, civilized need of the society to process in an expert and scientific way the documents that witness a stage in our history, and many more.

This is why it is important that we remind ourselves of the fact that the year 2006 is ten years since the Resolution on Measures for Dissolution of the Heritage of Ex-Communist Totalitarian Systems was adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is six years since the fall of the totalitarian regime in Serbia. It is three years since our country joined the Council of Europe. Each of these anniversaries should be understood as a serious warning that it is high time we passed a law that would regulate the treatment of dossiers of secret services and do something really important for further democratic transition of Serbia and its reputation in international relations.

Rodoljub Sabic, Information Commissioner

15-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

SABIC WARNS AUTHORITIES
Source: Glas javnosti

SABIC WARNS AUTHORITIES

BELGRADE - The Information Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic sent a written warning to the authorities reminding them of their legal obligation to submit their annual reports about actions taken with a view to applying the Free Access to Information of Public Importance Act. “Reports should be correct and without embellishments. If these two simple rules are followed, there may be few reasons for satisfaction but we will at least be able to observe the dimensions of the problems that occur in the application of the Free Access to Information Act”, said Sabic. It is important that the authorities show that they have been more responsible this year than in 2005 as they are, more than anyone else, obliged to take their legal obligations seriously, concluded Sabic.

14-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

HARSHER ACTION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Source: Blic

HARSHER ACTION AGAINST CORRUPTION

COMMENTS

Rodoljub Sabic, Information Commissioner

December 9, the International Anti-Corruption Day, reminded us that it has been a while since the Serbian Parliament adopted the National Anti-Corruption Strategy. It also reminded us that the year that followed was not enough to pass the Action Plan necessary for the realisation of the Strategy. Serbia got a number of normative acts of anti-corruption nature, ratified a number of international documents, joined international anti-corruption initiatives (GRECO, PACO, etc.). Many laws have been amended. There was some spectacular police action, which, with the help of courts, would have been even more effective. However, it is evident that there are not enough reasons for satisfaction. Slovenia and Slovakia for example, did not see as many as police interventions. Their parliaments did not adopt as many documents as Serbian Parliament did. Slovenia did not even adopt the famous UN Anti-Corruption Convention. However, these countries take much higher place on the world ranking lists when it comes to fighting corruption. Is it because we were just so when it came to the anti-corruption role of the public? It is obvious that these countries, while establishing the transparency of government work and public finances and enabling free access to the information concerning public resources were also building efficient preventive anti-corruption mechanisms. To the less successful ones they have offered a “recipe” that definitely needs to be tried out.

13-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

SILENCE VIOLATES THE LAW
Source: Danas

The right to access the information of public importance faces a number of obstacles

Silence violates the law

On December 10 we marked, rather visibly, the International Human Rights Day. The day before was the International Anti-Corruption Day, which was barely noticed.

Just like everywhere else in the world, the Human Rights Day was the opportunity to organise various events and gatherings, give announcements and public assessments - negative as well as positive - of the state of human rights in our country. The fact that we got the new Constitution makes the ever current topic of human rights even more interesting. On that occasion, the Information Commissioner was obliged to state that the fact that the new Constitution guarantees the right to access the information of public importance is a contribution to the improvement of human rights situation in Serbia. Although such a guarantee was given in the view of a rather unusual, even controversial, “right to information”, its significance is indisputable.

The right to access information owned by the public authorities did not enter our legal order with the new Constitution. Serbian citizens acquired this right two years ago, with the adoption of the Free Access to the Information of Public Importance Act. In this way, initial preconditions for the establishment of an efficient mechanism of civilian control of authorities were met. As one could have expected, the idea itself about such a control was in total opposition to the dominant mentality. Traditional, conservative concept of the relation between the government and the public that prevails in Serbian bureaucracy, as well as the servile concept of this relation that is dominant among Serbian citizens, proved to be serious obstacles to the realisation of this idea. A lot needs to be done to overcome these obstacles, and it is fair to say that little has been done or, in any case, it was not enough.

Of course, there are some positive examples too. The recent invitation made by the Serbian President to remove the secrecy label from the reports of VBA on Mladic could serve as an argument for de-mystification of “the secret” and the need to make public most of the government work. Furthermore, the decision of the Government to make public all the expenses accumulated in the campaign for the adoption of the new Constitution is indicative of the Government's understanding of the relation between the government and tax payers. Then there is the court decision to “release” the book “Vojna tajna” (“Military Secret”), which could be an example of accepting European standards in the field of human rights. The only problem is that these are rare examples, bordering with a random occurrence rather than a usual procedure. Obviously, more needs to be done and the obvious resistance to exercising the right to access the information should become history.

Do we need a better illustration than the available data on the application of penal provisions of the Free Access to the Information Act, i.e. the provisions that should ensure accountability for the violation of the right to free access to information? Out of thousands of violations of the law none of them were penalised at the intervention of the competent ministry. In truth, some time ago a magistrate did penalise the responsible person for violating the right to access the information and failing to provide the requested information, but the court proceedings were not initiated by the ministry but by a determined NGO.

As good as example are the data according to which in around 90 per cent of cases the right to information was not violated by quoting (even wrongly) the prescribed reasons for restricting those rights but by completely ignoring requests to provide access to the information, although the silence of the administration when it comes to the application of the Free Access to Information Act is not only unacceptable but subject to various penalties too.

There are many problems in the exercising of a recently introduced constitutional right to access the information owned by government bodies. However, the phenomenon of “accessing information” owned by government bodies is not only interesting in the context of human rights. It has another interesting dimension. It was not without a reason that I mentioned the Anti-Corruption Day at the beginning of this text, which was eclipsed by its “big brother”, the Human Rights Day. I mentioned it because 9 December was an opportunity to remind ourselves that it has been a while since we adopted the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, and that even one year later we failed to pass the Action Plan necessary for its realisation. We joined all anti-corruption initiatives (GRECO, PACO, etc.), we amended a number of laws, we have had some spectacular police action which, if helped by the court action, may have been much more effective and yet, on the international Index of Corruption Perception we are in the company of Surinam and Gabon, sharing positions 90-92, with a worrying mark 3.00. This mark indicates that corruption is a system problem and that it is beyond control. Slovenia and Slovakia for example, did not see as many as police interventions. Their parliaments did not adopt as many documents as Serbian Parliament did. Slovenia did not even adopt the famous UN Anti-Corruption Convention. However, these countries take much higher place on the world ranking lists when it comes to fighting corruption. The International Anti-Corruption Day was a great opportunity to ask ourselves if this was because we were just so different when it came to the anti-corruption role of the public and to conclude that these countries, while establishing the transparency of government work and public finances and enabling free access to the information of public importance about public resources were also building efficient preventive anti-corruption mechanisms. To the less successful countries they have offered a so much needed “recipe”. It would be irresponsible and unreasonable not to try it out. Written by the Information Commissioner

13-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

PROTECTION WITHOUT GUARANTEE
Source: Politika

Personal information
Protection without guarantee

Can we reliably know what is on a daily basis happening with the citizen's personal information stored in numerous databases available to diverse subjects, from government and non government sector?

When, several months ago, during business negotiations of two companies in USA, a laptop went missing, i.e. got stolen, at first it did not appear to be interesting news. Today, in electronics era, not only in USA, but also worldwide, such things happen everyday in countless numbers. However, in this case, this event came up as important news, so important that both participants in business negotiations - two famous and powerful companies, one in the field of electronics, Hewlett Packard, other in the field of finance, Fidelity Investment - not only jointly addressed the public, but they also undertook range of activities, unusual by its scope and specific (financial) weight.

Surely, the reason of such reaction was not the computer, but information stored in its memory, obviously very valuable. Although it would be logical, in the sense of our circumstances, to presume that this information, which was a priori given a great value, is from the field of hi-tech, defense and security, espionage etc. - it was not the case. On the contrary, the computer memory contained personal information related to 196.000 active and former employees of Hewlett Packard (names and surnames, addresses, birth dates, social security numbers, disbursed severance amounts, etc.).

Hewlett Packard and Fidelity Investment informed US public through media on this event, and in addition, they directly and personally warned each of 196.000 persons about the possible hazard. Moreover, in cooperation with three elite companies for processing credit cards, they have specially organized - of course, free of charge for the owners - supervision of access to potentially vulnerable financial accounts, and provided double verification system for financial transaction on such accounts. Finally, aware of the fact that the possible damage does not have to be solely financial, but also includes other consequences such as identity theft, notwithstanding all measures already mentioned, Hewlett Packard and Fidelity Investment committed to compensate any damage incurred due to theft of this information.

It is unlikely that something more can be done, however the event started debate not only in public, but also in US Congress, concerning the issue whether the sufficient measures are taken in order to protect personal data.

This event deserves our attention as well. It is not because it is somehow related to our reality; it does not have any connection whatsoever, which outlines a huge contrast regarding significance of protecting personal data in the world, and here.

What would be our reaction to a similar situation? Would we ever find about this? Do we know for certain what is happening everyday with citizen's personal information stored in multiple databases available to diverse subjects, whether from government or non government sector? Who can be sure that this information is used solely for the purpose for which it has been collected, and is it available solely to the persons pursuant to the law? Who can offer and what guarantees can be offered to this end?

It is unlikely that the possible answers to these questions can be optimistic, on the contrary. It is not circumstantial that the last, recently published EU report, states not only that our existing Personal Information Protection Law from 1998 is not in line with the European standards but also that, which is much more important, we do not have any independent functional entity which could actually provide realization of personal information protection rights. It is not, of course, necessary that EU Commission point this out, because it has already been done throughout years by our expert public, however, without effects.

Enactment of the new Constitution, and in particular Constitutional Law for its implementation, was certainly a good opportunity for something to be done in this sense. Regretfully, this opportunity was left out as well. There are particular dilemmas already at the constitutional level. The constitutional guarantee for the right to privacy was omitted, although this was an old practice originating from early socialist constitutions. It is still unclear whether it was an omission due to promptness, or it was intentional. And, at least for some people, there is a dilemma whether the constitutional guarantee for the protection of personal information completely compensates absence of the right to privacy. An abstract guarantee of the protection of personal information at the constitutional level has not been made operational in the Constitutional Law for implementing Constitution. Not only that authors of the Constitutional Law did not opt to entrust protection of this right to independent functional entity, commissioner, ombudsman etc. which currently represents a trend; they rather did not go into creating provisions for the concrete protection of personal information. It is really hard to understand that the Constitutional Law deals with rights and entities, for which it is difficult to find equivalent in the comparative practice, and that it does not treat the problem of protecting personal information.

In such conditions, it is not a coincidence that the mentioned report of the European Commission concludes that the existence of the right to protect personal information in Serbia is purely theoretical, because implementation of the regulations has not been ensured, which is something to worry about. Acceptance of this remark, of course, is not a problem. Ignorance of the responsible persons with regard to issue of protecting personal information is not only a current problem; it will become a growing problem.

Information Commissioner
Rodoljub Sabic

05-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

CONVERTING FREEDOM INTO A LIABILITY
Source: Danas

Vagueness in the Constitutional Law may jeopardize citizens' right to information

Converting freedom into a liability

"Newly elected composition of the National Parliament shall, in course of the first session after the election of the Government, harmonize laws governing citizens' protector and citizens' right to information with the Constitution, and elect citizens' protector, entity in charge of monitoring implementation of citizens' right to information, Governor of the National Bank of Serbia and entities of the National Auditing Institution." Quoted provision of Article 5 of the Constitutional Law for implementing Constitution of the Republic of Serbia has considerably drawn public attention. The much of its attention was drawn due to its HR consequences, as it was usually the case here. Unfortunately, some other issues objectively deserve more attention. Naturally - from pragmatic and principle point of view - in democratic society, the issue of intervening into a status, i.e. mandate of persons in charge of leading independent institutions is never irrelevant. Therefore, whether the Information Commissioner along with the NBS Governor would be (as Governor vividly explained) some sort of desert on the post-election celebration feast, certainly cannot be irrelevant, but surely it is not the most important issue. In view of the free access to information issues far more important are the ones caused by the fact that it is quite unclear what can be comprised under the "harmonization of the Constitutional Law governing realization of citizens' right to information." And, of course, the fact that such vagueness may, both hypothetically and actually, cause already attained level of the freedom of rights to reduce. Much of this remained unclear. What are the laws to be harmonized with constitutional "right to information", whatever this right means? Pursuing the abstract logic, it is left for us to presume that this initially may be the Public Information Law, then the Law on Free Access to Public Information, and possibly some other laws as well (Law on Republic Broadcasting Agency....). Already at the very beginning, concerning harmonization of the Public Information Law with the Constitution, two delicate things can be noticed. The first is related to the provision of Article 50, paragraph 1 of the Serbian Constitution providing that "everybody shall be free to, and without approval, in the modality provided for by the Law, establish newspaper and other means of public information". Everybody also stand for the state, province, local self-administration. This provision provides them to, regardless of any subsequent provisions, freely establish (printed) media. This freedom may not be revoked by the law; the law only regulates the modality to realize this freedom. Harmonization of the Public Information Law, i.e. recurring availability of the option for the Government to establish its own media, could make questionable so far assiduous results more or less achieved in depolitization of media. The other problem appears in connection with the famous "right to information". This, unusual legal standard by its terminology and contents, is laid out in the constitutional provision "everybody shall have the right to be truthfully, utterly and timely informed on issues of public importance, and means of public information shall be liable to respect this right ". At first, this norm acts as an empty proclamation, and not the proper legal form. However, if it turns out that this is not the case, consequences can be very unpleasant. Namely, by strictly interpreting quoted provision, we inevitably come to a conclusion that the media has liability to inform everybody truthfully, utterly and in timely manner. And this is an extremely complex liability. What is true, complete and timely? Who is the one to estimate this? Since the effective Public Information Law does not put operation of the means of public information into the context of liability, but rather into the context of freedom, providing for that they "freely publish ideas, information and opinions", the conclusion is that the harmonization with the Constitution would lead to converting freedom into a liability, which is of course, from the point of view of contemporary standards, unacceptable. If harmonization means that the government estimates the quality of performing "liabilities", this could make us return decades backwards. And, "the entity in charge of monitoring realization of the citizens' right to information" is ante portas. This is why, if it is inevitable to have an entity with such unbelievably unusual title, regardless of its scope being unclear, or type of jurisdiction it has, we would have to make incontestable at least that its prospective composition can be consisted of people from media, profession, and not from politics. There is a lot of vagueness and it would be good to, wherever possible, eradicate it as soon as possible. Until then, the amount of imprecision and dilemmas, inadequate with relation to the act which has considerably smaller legal importance, will surely represent more than solid grounds for criticism from numerous, different points of view. Finally, whichever criticism Constitutional Law deserves, due to issues it dealt with and the way of doing it, there are maybe even stronger critiques as regards issues it did not deal with. The example in this sense is an issue of personal information protection. New Constitution guaranteed protection of personal information, but the abstract constitutional guarantee was not, in any way whatsoever, made operational in the Constitutional Law. And, in its most recent report, European Commission finds that in Serbia existence of the personal information protection regulations is purely theoretical, that the implementation of these regulations has not been ensured, hence this remains worrisome reason. Obviously this is correct; the reason of concern, not for them, but for us.

The author is Information Commissioner

05-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

AFFIRMATION OF EUROPEAN STANDARDS
Source: Glas javnosti

BELGRADE - Commissioner for Public Information made a remark yesterday on the decision of Belgrade District Court to return to the author of the book “The Military Secret” confiscated copies of the book. The decision represents a contribution towards establishing and affirmation of European democratic standards in the field of freedom of speech, writes Fonet. „This Court decision represents an important step towards immediate application of the European Convention on Human Rights and consistent consideration of positions stated in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights “, said Sabic in his written statement. Sabic was particular about accepting affirmed democratic standards in this field, which purport that the code of silence may protect legitimate interests only. He stressed that, when classified information once becomes available to the public thus ceasing to be classified, restricting its distribution is impermissible and represents, among other things, violation of the right of access to information.

05-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

A GOOD DECISION
Source: Blic

A GOOD DECISION

Comments

Rodoljub Sabic Commissioner for Information of Public Importance

In these days, Criminal Extra-Procedural Council of the Belgrade District Court made a decision which, in a duly manner, puts to an end one, legally speaking, truly interesting case from the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance's practice. It is a court decision saying that the confiscated copies of the book „Military Secret“ shall be returned to the author and publisher. Three years ago, when the „Military Secret“ appeared, with its contents and the fact that it was confiscated, and criminal proceedings instituted against the author, it had warned us that we do not hold answers to two extremely important questions. First, is it, after the classified information once emerge in public, justified and allowed to restrict its availability? And second, more important, is it justified and allowed to hold liable individual who makes such secret available to public in order to warn about illegal activities hidden behind the secret? When recently, author and publisher requested assistance from the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, it was an opportunity to verify whether some things have changed. The court decision proved that they have. The good thing is that the answer provided on the first question was in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, practice of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg and the human rights democratic standards. It would be even better if we had proper answer on the second question as well. And not by virtue of individual court decision, but through legal provisions, which shall protect the people who „give away“ the secret concealing illicit activity, from threats and not only from criminal, but also from any other kind of responsibility.

05-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

"MILITARY SECRET" BECOMES A PUBLIC SECRET
Source: Danas

By the decision of the Criminal Extra-Procedural Council of the Belgrade District Court Military Department, the “Military Secret” became a public one.

BELGRADE - The Criminal Extra-Procedural Council of the Belgrade District Court Military Department brought a decision to return temporarily confiscated copies of the book Military Secret I and Military Secret II to the accused Vladan Vlajkovic, the book author, and to the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, the publisher. Owing to this decision the author and the publisher shall receive back all 682 copies of the mentioned book, the District Court said in a statement yesterday.
Copies of the book were temporarily confiscated in the course of investigative procedure, based on the order of investigative judge of the Military Court. The Criminal Extra-Procedural Council has, quoting the statement, "found that the purpose of temporary confiscation of the subject was exhausted in the sense of possible ensuring of proof for the criminal procedure, and preventing further exercising of the criminal act " cannot obstruct further course of the procedure, nor could it create any consequences for the security of the country, having in mind altered social/economic circumstances, and the fact that the content of the mentioned book is available to the wider audience through various means of public information and internet sites ". The author Vladan Vlajkovic reminds that the book was confiscated at the time of assassination of Zoran Djindjic and announces another, amended edition. - I am happy and thank the Commissioner for Public Information Rodoljub Sabic, Sinisa Vazic, President of the District Court and the media that have all along followed the odyssey of my book, TV Station B92 and journal Danas. I hope this is the sign that Serbia is moving towards the reform of certain systems - said for 'Danas' Vladan Vlajkovic. B. T.

04-12-2006

...................................................................................................................................

INFLUENCE OF THE STATE MUST BE LIMITED!
Source: Glas javnosti

Virgini Juan: Laws regarding media should be respected in Serbia.

Influence of the state must be limited!