Commissioner for information of public importance evaluates that the government obligation in all, and almost every occasion, is undoubtfully to render the execution of rights and freedom according to the contribution. Especially it is important to react in suitable way when the enforcement of these rights and freedom is under the question, by the actions that can be interpreted or as total ignorance or as consciously breaking even the elementary law standards in this field. In relation to that, Commissioner, Rodoljub Šabić stated next:

“When it is about the realization of the free access to the information, illustrated examples are presenting the complaints that the small number of the state authorities made against the decision of Commissioner. In the procedure of the access to the information, the right of the searcher for the information is going to be decided, not the right of the state authorities. State authority, from which the information was asked, is not a party; it is a first range organ in the procedure, in which the Commissioner to the information is second range. First range organ, hasn't and can't have rights to charges against the decision of the second range organ. Even that it is the issue the law students should know, we are witnesses of the nonsense that some people inside the our state authorities are acting as if they didn't know it, ignoring even the fact that the Supreme Court of Serbia in all 20 cases which it had solved 'till know, according to these complaints, through the charges as non permitted.

This waist of money of the taxpayers and time of Supreme Court worries additionally, because pressing the non-permitted charges is truing to be used like some „law excuse“ for not giving the asked information. Giving the information is delayed 'till the court decision, and it is counted in advance that the procedure in the court will usually last long. That is again one law nonsense, because they should have known that pressing the charges in the administrative dispute, even when the charge is permitted, by it self, is not delaying the execution of the final decision.

Maybe it is possible that in some cases it can be lack of knowledge, but the sense of avoiding the law standards is certainly present. No matter what the cause is, duty of the democratic government is to prevent playing with the constitution and rights according to the law about the public rights, not even the turbulent political occasions shouldn't be the excuse for not taking the right measures by the competent in the executive authority - from the education to the duty“