With regard to the yesterday's announcement of the "Standing Commission of Oppositional Political Parties for Provision of Conditions for Fair Elections" (Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS), Party of Democratic Action of Sandzak (SDA of Sandzak), Democratic Party (DS), Together for Serbia, New Party, Turnaround Movement, Dveri Movement, "Enough!" and New Serbian Political Thought (NSPM)), particularly the following its part: "We will request from the Commissioner to respond to any future violation of civil freedoms and data privacy grossly abused by representatives of the government through their door-to-door campaign, particularly abuse of the electoral rolls", the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection does not find this practice to be constructive at all. This was an act which effectively, regardless of its motive, tried to politicize an independent institution and which mispresented its work, competences and powers to the public.
In that regard, Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic said the following:
"In general, there is no reason for political parties to call the institution of the Commissioner to protect citizens' rights because it does so every day within its powers and available resources.
As regards this specific "cause", the Commissioner notes that he warned the public on several occasions that various activities of political parties in the form of visits of their activists to citizens' home addresses are perceived as harassment by many citizens. However, it is a notorious fact, and political parties should also know this, that the Commissioner has no legal or factual means of preventing anyone from making unsolicited visits to citizens' home addresses. Regardless of that, he still noted on several occasions, although this should go without saying, that it was entirely up to citizens to decide whether they want to let party-political activists into their homes or answer their questions and they were by no means required to do so.
In that regard, the Commissioner emphasized in public on several occasions that it was rather telling that citizens were protected, at least on paper, from unsolicited visits by door-to-door salespersons, agents and service providers by a set of consumer protection provisions contained in several laws, but that there were no legal provisions which would protect them from harassment by party-political activists. The Commissioner warned that the competent authorities should review this issue in order to determine whether such different treatment was justified.
Also, as regards the suspicion that party-political activists use official electoral rolls, the Commissioner noted most emphatically on several occasions that any unauthorised provision, disclosure or use of personal data collected, processed or used under the law for purposes other than those for which they were intended constitutes a criminal offence under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. A specific form of this criminal offence, indeed its most serious form, occurs when it is committed by an official, in which case it is punishable by up to three years of imprisonment. However, it is also a notorious fact that the Commissioner is neither competent nor has any means available to conduct criminal investigations. Identification and prosecution of perpetrators is the task of other public authorities which have been established for this purpose. In this regard the Commissioner also expressed his worry and dissatisfaction on several occasions because these authorities have not acted as expected although there have been numerous instances of reasonable suspicion of multiple criminal offences.
These Commissioner's evaluations, warnings and initiatives have not, at least so far, met support from political parties, but I hope they might in the future. I wish success to political parties in their attempts to ensure all conditions for fair play in elections because this is in interest of all citizens of our country. However, I warn that moves which wrongly present citizens' rights and the work and powers of institutions protecting those rights to the public certainly cannot be classified as such attempts."
