The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has submitted the request to the Government of the Republic of Serbia, in accordance with Article 28, paragraph 4 of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, to ensure the enforcement of his decision, by direct coercion, ordering the Anti-Corruption Agency to provide the anti-corruption portal Pistaljka copies of documents from the case file relating to the control of assets and income of the Mayor of Belgrade Sinisa Mali. The Agency failed to act upon the said decision even after paying the 200,000 RSD fine imposed by the Commissioner.
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 data. Therefore the Commissioner acting upon the appeal of "Pistaljka" ordered the Agency to provide the requested data to "Pistaljka", with exception to certain personal data, which are to be protected.
The Agency partially enforced the decision and "protected" , i.e. withheld certain information that does not constitute personal data, e.g. the amount of cash transactions, floor area of real estate, automobile brands, etc., therefore “Pistaljka” requested the Commissioner to institute enforcement proceedings.
After the Commissioner 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. The Agency "explained" its failure to fully comply with the Commissioner’s order by stating 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 ‘’argument’’ is not acceptable for several reasons. In the first place, the Agency did not refer to it 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 "secrecy" 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 under requirements, at least formally, in accordance with the Law on Data Secrecy. Anyway, the Agency did not make available these documents to the Commissioner, even after a repeated request, although , if they really are "secret" the Agency itself had been obtaining and using them contrary to the law, since no one in the Agency disposes of the certificate that is required for access to classified documents.
Regardless of all this, and more importantly, the information related to suspicions of "money laundering" by any officials cannot in any way reasonably deserve the level of confidentiality "secret". This would mean that its communication to the public would lead to "serious prejudice to the interests of the Republic of Serbia", and such a conclusion is not only contrary to the spirit of the law, but also to elementary logic.
The Commissioner has, bearing 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, already publicly estimated that 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.
The Commissioner has submitted this request to the Government, aware that the Government has "consistently" failed to fulfill its statutory liability to ensure enforcement of his decision by direct coercion, if necessary, because he thinks that he is liable to consistently implement measures which he is authorized to and must implement by law.
