The Commissioner for Information of Public Interest and Personal Data Protection expressed his surprise and worry regarding the attitude of the National Assembly Committee for Constitutional Issues and Legislation, opting not to initiate the procedure for authentic interpreting of Article 3 of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, i.e. not to answer the open question – whether the Notaries Public have the status of the public authority in the meaning of this Article of the Law?

The Commissioner regrets that the National Assembly Committee has opted for extremely formalistic approach to the problem, neglecting the delicate issue of law implementation and that it has left it open.

In relation to that, the Commissioner, Rodoljub Šabić also stated:

"Article 3 of the Law determined that the obligations based on it, also among else apply to "the organization vested with performing public authorizations". So, the legislator has obviously guided himself during determining the status of the public authority body that this status shall also be acquired based on vested public authorizations, and the Public Notaries Act vests the public authorizations in the Notary Public. However, the law uses the term "organization", and the Notary Public is an individual, an expert nominated by the Minister, without the legal entity status, and is not an organization.

In the letter to the Assembly I have warned that they are the only ones who can give a valid answer to this open question by authentic interpreting or by quick changes of the law.

Committee for Constitutional Issues and Legislation opted for a solution which does not offer either end. They just "informed me" that the Commissioner is not authorized to submit proposal for authentic interpreting, and that I can ask for "opinion from the ministry in charge", thus practically discarding my request.

Of course that I have long time ago asked and received the opinion from the Ministry of State Administration and Local Self Government, which is identical to mine. And of course that I know it well, because it is generally known, that according to the Article 194. of the National Assembly Rules of Procedure, the proposal for authentic interpretation can be submitted by the Law Proponent authorized by the Constitution, which the Commissioner is not. Therefore the enactment I have sent to the National Assembly is not even formally marked as a proposal, but as a request. It points out to the problem which should and must be resolved, and which can be resolved only by the National Assembly.

That request could have been, without any problems, simply put, transformed into the formal proposal of the Committee Chairman or of any of the 34 members of deputy members. I expected with certainty that this should go that way, and I am really unpleasantly surprised with the fact that no one from them did so.

It is of principled importance to make it undisputable that anyone vested with public authorizations, of course including the Public Notaries, should become the subject of public control. By such an act, the Assembly Committee missed to perform. The Committee act also opens a set of practical issues, which I have underlined in my letter. It is definitively no longer possible to exclude that permanent depositing with the Notaries, of documents which form the legitimate subject of public interest might become an "efficient" means for limiting and circumventing the rights of the public."