The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection issued, acting in accordance with the law, an enforcement notice and requested the Anti-Corruption Agency, under threat of fines, to execute its decision within two days and submit to the Anti-Corruption Portal "Pistaljka" the requested information or documents from the case relating to the control of assets and income of the Mayor of Belgrade, with the proviso to protect personal data and make them unavailable before submission, if they are contained in these documents, such as the names of all persons other than those of officials and Sinisa and Marija Mali, and address data, Unique Master Citizen Number, bank account number, amounts of money in bank accounts, data about the address where the real estates are located, registration plate numbers of the means of transportation, etc.

"Pistaljka" has requested the said information from the Agency prior to this, but the request was rejected.

"Pistaljka" filed an appeal with the Commissioner who found the appeal founded and issued a decision ordering the Agency to make the required information available in the abovementioned manner.

The Anti-Corruption Agency informed the Commissioner that it had acted upon his order, however “Pistaljka” pointed out in a letter to the Commissioner that this was done only partially, i.e. that the data which were not supposed to be protected under the Commissioner’s decision were "protected" by the Agency, as well. “Pistaljka” requested that the Commissioner institute enforcement proceedings.

In order to determine the facts of the case in full, the Commissioner requested the Agency to provide the copies of the case file of case of the Mayor of Belgrade, however the Agency refused to do so. It informed the Commissioner that "it can be concluded" that some data are "secret" and imposed a special condition for accessing the documents – that it is "necessary" for the Commissioner to access them "personally, with prior notice." After pointing out that such a condition is devoid of any meaning, and directly contrary to the standards of cooperation between state authorities and the provisions of the Law on Data Secrecy, the Agency’s condition still remained the same, and it failed to submit the required case file.

Since it may be concluded, even without examining the whole case file, by examining the documents published by the Agency, that Pistaljka’s allegations are true - that the Commissioner’s decision was only partially complied with, i.e. that the data (names of companies linked with the official, the amounts of cash transactions, real estate floor area, automobile brands, etc.) had been "protected" as well, the Commissioner has issued the enforcement notice.

If the Agency fails to comply with the enforcement notice, the Commissioner shall impose fines, and he expresses a complete lack of understanding for the Agency’s actions that are definitely in grave conflict with its name and remit.

The Commissioner also expresses a complete lack of understanding for the fact that the information on the Anti-Corruption Agency’s actions has not attracted the attention of other competent state authorities.

In the course of this proceedings, in which the Agency "protected" some "secret" data from the Commissioner (to whom all state authorities submit confidential documents, as he is authorized by law not only to examine confidential documents, but also to order declassification, regardless of the level of classification, and in whose service a large number of associates have passed rigorous security checks and dispose of the relevant safety certificate), it turned out that the Agency definitively has no minimum references to protect them from anyone.

In the course of eight years from the date of entry into force of the Law on Data Secrecy the Agency has not implemented the said Law, has not taken any measures provided for by the Law, nobody in the Agency has been subject to security checks, therefore it does not dispose of the necessary certificate for access to classified data.

All this indisputably indicates that the Agency has committed, i.e. that it has, continuously, for years, been committing numerous criminal offenses foreseen under Articles 99 and 100 of the Law on Data Secrecy. These facts also indicate the existence of grounds for suspicion that the Agency has committed, i.e. that it has, continuously, for years, been committing numerous criminal offenses foreseen under Article 98 of the Law on Data Secrecy.

If these facts have not attracted the attention of the Ministry of Justice by now, which in accordance with the law "supervises" the implementation of the Law on Data Secrecy, as well as the attention of the Prosecutor’s Office, then it is high time for them to institute appropriate proceedings, and inform the public about the results thereof.