Precedent
ExpiredPRECEDENT
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.
