Source: Danas
Free access to the information in the Law and practice
Personal attitude
Not so long ago the Association of the Journalists in Serbia, by the repeated request to the Government of Serbia to render certain execution of one decision of Commissioner for the information, reminded public on one, already forgotten, bizarre event. In the mentioned event, few months ago, the journalist, who tried to film the „clinic“, which was built, without the building permission, begin at the property of one Minister, was physically attacked. Minister „explained“ that the journalist was attacked because he was sexually molesting Minister's sheep, about what, as he said, there is a police report. This kind of explanation, both Association of journalist, UNS and NUNS, marked as tuff lie and serious insult, not just to this exact journalist, but also to whole journalist profession. They asked from the police, on the call of the Law about the free access to the information, to deny, or if they can, affirm the Minister's statements. Police react with “silence“ on their request, and made a claim to Commissioner for the information. On the request to express opinion about the claim, of Commissioner, also, the police remained silent, after what Commissioner made a decision and requested from the police administration to inform UNS in three days if they posses any information about the incident. Police didn't do it, so the journalist, according to the law procedure that the Serbian Government, in the case when needed, render execution of the Commissioner decision, ask the Government to do so. Now they did it again.Even though in the journalist persistence to reveal the truth, nothing can be controversial, many people could say that it has no meaning now. Silence of the police is saying by it self and the truth got its satisfaction. But, this move of the Association of the journalist has undoubtful principal meaning, because it's showing one phenomena that has no little (bad) evaluation of importance when it is about the relation of the Government, Constitution and legally guaranteed public rights, generally, not just in this case.
In relation to that, it is good to remained of some information, which are showing how the protection of the right on the free access to the information of public importance, is rendered in our country. Those information are showing that in almost two thirds of cases Commissioner for the information has no need to make the decision, to request, because after his first intervention, the state authority give the information, which they first withheld. In the rest one third of cases, when the formal request is also needed, Commissioner make the suitable decision. In most cases it is done according to those decisions. But still in some cases, state authorities haven't done as Commissioner requested, even though they are obliged to do so. Statistically, it is about the very little percent of cases when you compare it to the entire number. Still, when you look closely to the quality and structure of these information, especially when you have in mind principal meaning of this “resistance“ of the law, then it is clear that it is about the question which is irresponsible to underestimate.
Legislator, probably having that in mind, explicitly foresees that the Commissioner decisions are obliging, and that their execution, in the case when it is needed, is render by the Serbian Government. But, the facts are showing that his intention, those responsible ones didn't understand quite seriously. That is to say, in those hundreds of cases civilians, journalists, media, NVO and others, asked from Government to render the execution of Commissioner, which it didn't do in any case.
The only explanation they gave, unofficial, in half a tone, was that the problem was because the way the Government should do their duty “wasn't solved”. This “excuse” was probably accepted in the beginning of the enforcement of the law. Few years later - it is not. Before everything it is not accepted because on the formal preposition of Commissioner to the Government, to authorize some of their offices to render the execution of Commissioner, they didn't react. Could it be controversial, what is it presenting, in the context of real realization of the public right, tolerating this situation? It can't. No matter what the personal reason is, “consistency“ of the Government in not undertaking measures that are needed for the true revealing of rights according to the contribution and law, generally presents not just playing with those rights, but also (in) direct call for their braking.
Author is Commissioner for information
