Source: Blic
The last decision of the Government of Serbia that journalists should sign affidavit „that they shall not, under full criminal and material liability, record, copy, print or rewrite data from the Annex to the Concession Agreement for HorgoS - Pozega Highway“, is contravening domestic laws. The government has thus violated the Law on Free Access to Information, and then the Law on Free Information Process. One shouldn't even speak about how much this move of the Government of Serbia is contravening Constitutional provisions. - Idea that certain persons, including the journalists have right to access documents, that is, information, pending that they sing affidavit quoting that they won't publish it, is completely contrary to the provisions of the Law on Free Access to Information and with provisions of the Law on Public Information. Eventually, it is also contrary to Constitutional provisions - explains for „Blic“ Commissioner for Information of Public Interest, Mr. Rodoljub Sabic. He says that an „information is either available to the public or it is not“.- If it is not available due to reasons envisaged by the law, than only limited number of employees have access to it, and journalists do not have it in any case. If it is available to the public, than it is available to anyone, without discrimination. Not only to journalists, but also to citizens - he says. Explaining the resulting situation in relation to the existing regulations, Sabic points out that the Law strictly forbids that the right to access information, besides else, also means copyright.- So, if the document is not available to the public, you can not even see it, and if it is available, than copying can not be prohibited - stresses Sabic. There are cases when officers sign affidavit and that pertains to confidential documents. However, Hihgway Concession Agreement does not have confidentiality mark. Sabic says that, if strictly legal aspects are left aside, it is senseless that media representatives should be put in a position to look at something, but be prohibited to write about that.
- It is absurd, because on one side they can easily overcome that prohibition, for instance, so that the text would be signed by someone who didn't see the document, or the Editorial Board shall publish a text without signature and the like. But, however, I do not think that they should use that. Journalists' job is to write and to inform the public. Probably therefore the Constitution envisages that everyone has the right to truthfully, completely and timely be informed about the issues of public importance, and the mass media are obliged to respect that right - explains Sabic.
