The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection urged today deputies in the National Assembly to adopt the amendment to the Draft Misdemeanours Law which proposes extensions of statute of limitations for infringements set out by the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance.

The Commissioner reminded that those were infringements which were by their nature committed by public officials, the very people who had a duty to enforce the law. The fact that these people are violating the law en masse should be sufficient reason to strengthen all liability instruments.

Emphasising that the situation regarding liability for violation of the right to know was very far from satisfactory, and in particular that short statutes of limitation afforded the perpetrators of offences a high degree of certainty that they would not be held liable, Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic also said the following:

"I am surprised by the fact that the Serbian Government did not endorse this amendment. I believe the explanation the Government provided for that action – "the absolute statute of limitations of two years is appropriate" – was difficult, indeed impossible to reconcile with the actual facts.

As an illustrative example, I will remind you that several thousand violations of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance were committed in 2011 and 2012 and the competent ministries did not initiate any infringement proceeding. They did not even initiate these proceedings in the most drastic cases of violations of the Law, of which they were informed by the Commissioner for Information who is not authorised by the Law to initiate infringement proceedings himself. These proceedings cannot be initiated by the competent institutions anymore even if they wanted to, because statute of limitations expired.

In the same period, in the rare cases where citizens, NGOs or the media succeeded in initiating the proceedings as the damaged party, only several dozens of convictions have been secured. Thus, the number of those who have been brought to account at least in some way is at best measured in per milles.

In such circumstances, the existing level of implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance has been achieved virtually without any contribution that sanctions normally provide in the implementation of a law. It has been achieved through frequent critical public appearances by the Commissioner and especially through pressure from the media and the public. This was necessary and commendable, but it certainly must not replace the elementary principle of the rule of law – that any violation of law must result in liability.

The failure to accept the proposal to extend statute of limitations for violation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance sends a message that is wrong on many levels. I would like to recall that these are infringements which are by their nature committed not by "ordinary" citizens but by public officials, the very people who are elected and paid to enforce the law. That fact should emphasize the importance of their liability of any kind, including infringement liability. That liability should be a rule, a principle, while lack thereof should be only a rare exception, rather than vice versa. Continued application of obviously too short statutes of limitations which all but guarantee that perpetrators will avoid liability for violation of the public's rights, coupled with simultaneous extension of statutes of limitations for certain infringements committed by businesses and citizens is not compliant with this principle."