The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has forwarded a Warning to the Ministry of Interior on occasion of the enforcement of the Law on Personal Data Protection (LPDP) due to its failure to take the required technical, HR and organizational measures to safeguard the medical data on the health status of police officers, which is considered particularly sensitive personal data.

In this regard the Commissioner, Rodoljub Sabic, has stated the following:

"The immediate cause for supervision and the warning was the emergence of a document entitled "List of police officers of the 4th Battalion who are currently on sick leave due to their mental status'', on the wall of the official premises of the 4th Battalion of the Gendarmerie in Nis".

Needless to say, the data on the health status in general, and therefore the data on mental health in particular, fall within the category of the so-called particularly sensitive data whose processing is permitted only with the consent of the data subject, or insofar as this is expressly allowed under the law. Disclosure of such personal data in a visible place is an obvious gross violation of privacy.

The List has been removed, and I expect and believe that nothing similar in the MoI will ever happen again. However, the "reasons" for and "explanations" of this procedure provided to the Commissioner by the responsible persons from the MoI are certainly another warning about an absolutely inadequate attitude of the state towards personal data protection. In his daily surveillance activities, the Commissioner is faced with extremely troubling consequences of the lack of a strategic approach, which must necessarily include at least elementary training of officers on the modern standards of personal data protection.

Therefore, even though this particular warning has been sent to the address of the MoI, it actually applies to all public authorities. A much more responsible, a more active and a better attitude towards the status of personal data protection are necessary.

The fact that this particular case involves the so-called particularly sensitive data is an excellent occasion to once again point out the example which is an ''excellent'' illustration of the prevailing attitude. Particularly sensitive data under Article 16 of LPDP must be protected by special safeguards, and the filing method and the safeguards "upon obtaining the Commissioner's opinion'' shall be defined by the Government." The deadline for the Government to pass the Decree expired back at the beginning of May 2009! Despite several Commissioner's warnings, the Government (and there have been several changes of the Government since then) and the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for its preparation, are yet to do so. There is no rational reason to be offered as an "explanation" for a five-and-a-half-year-long tardiness."