The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has imposed the second fine of 180,000 RSD on the Anti-Corruption Agency, due to its failure to act upon the Commissioner’s decision to provide to the anti-corruption portal ‘’Pistaljka’’ information or documents from the case file relating to the control of assets and income of the Mayor of Belgrade Sinisa Mali.

Prior to the above mentioned, the Anti-Corruption Agency had rejected the access to information request of the portal "Pistaljka" in its entirety by denying access to any information.

‘’Pistaljka" filed an appeal with the Commissioner who found the appeal founded and issued a decision ordering the Agency to make the requested information available, with exception to certain information constituting personal data, which were to be protected.

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, e.g. the amount of cash transactions, floor area of real estate, automobile brands, etc., and requested the Commissioner to institute enforcement proceedings.

After the Commissioner issued the enforcement notice and informed the Agency that fines would be imposed on it in the event of non-compliance, the Agency submitted some data to "Pistaljka" previously denied to it, but it did not submit all data, and "Pistaljka" stands by its request to proceed with administrative enforcement.

The Agency "explains" its failure to fully comply with the Commissioner’s order with the fact that the data in question are "secret" and have been labeled as such by other authorities, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering.

The Agency’s arguments are not acceptable for several reasons. In the first place, due to the fact the Agency failed to refer to them during the proceedings. The Agency rejected the request of "Pistaljka", citing the "threat to the proceedings underway’’ and the "protection of privacy" of the Mayor. The reference to the "new" grounds at this stage of enforcement proceedings is, of course, legally untenable.

However, even if the Agency had indicated the issue of "secrecy" in the stage of the proceedings when it was possible to do so, that argument would have been extremely problematic.

Due to formal reasons, since there is no evidence that this information has really been classified as "secret" in the manner and in accordance with the requirements, at least formally, provided for in the Law on Data Secrecy.

And fundamentally since it is incomprehensible that the information related to suspicions of "money laundering" by any officials might reasonably deserve the level of confidentiality "secret", which means that, since it is to be communicated to the public pursuant to the law, non-communication would lead to "serious prejudice to the interests of the Republic of Serbia". Such conclusion is not only contrary to the spirit of the law, but also to elementary logic.

It should particularly be borne in mind that the data related to the suspicions of "money laundering" have been known to the authorities for the past eight years, which should have been more than enough time for them to declare whether the suspicions are founded or not.

After so much time, and without any of the expected effects, the status "secret" has inevitably become much more reminiscent of the cover-up of some suspicious activities rather than of the protection of the proceedings, which the Anti-Corruption Agency and other competent authorities should be aware of.