The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance has received inquiries from many journalists and media companies interested in the outcome of the proceedings instituted pursuant to the complaints lodged by the Chairperson of the Provincial Assembly of Vojvodina, Mr. Bojan Kostres, because of the denial of access to information on the concession deal for the Horgos - Pozega Highway.

These proceedings have been concluded and Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic has issued the following announcement in connection with them:

“Mr. Kostres had lodged three complaints - one against the Government, one against the Ministry of Capital Investments and one against the Ministry of Finance. I rejected the first complaint as inadmissible, because the Law did not provide for a possibility to take administrative action against the Government's enactments or actions before the Commissioner. I found the remaining two complaints to be grounded and have accordingly passed resolutions ordering the Ministries to issue to the complainant the requested copy of the Concession Agreement.

“In the process of deliberation, I did not specifically take into account those provisions of the Concessions Law that provide for the participation of Provincial authorities in the concession award procedure and any ensuing specific rights in terms of access to information. I was guided solely by the provisions of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance. More specifically, I took into account the provisions pursuant to which access of the public to certain information can be denied only in exceptional circumstances, for reasons specified in the Law and according to a procedure set out in the Law. In the pertinent case it was not so. The Ministry of Finance had taken recourse to inadmissible “silence of administration” and remained “silent” throughout the whole affair. The Ministry of Capital Investments also remained “silent” during the 15-day period which the Law sets as the deadline for responding to a request and then, in violation of the Law, extended this deadline to 40 days. Finally, even this second deadline expired and the request was neither answered nor rejected. Procedural rules have obviously not been observed; furthermore, the denial of access to information was not grounded in substantive law.

“The only reason quoted for refusal was the allegation that it had been agreed with the concessionaire to treat all information in connection with the construction of the highway as “confidential”. Quite obviously, there was no need for that. The fact that certain information has formally been marked as confidential is not in itself sufficient reason to deny public access. The Law sets out another formal requirement on top of this one. Namely, it is necessary to prove that disclosure of the information could have severe legal or other consequences for overriding public interests that outweigh the public's interest to know. In this specific case it was not so and, obviously, the public's right to know in this case outweighs the purely abstract “confidentiality”. In principle, the public has the tight to know everything in connection with the government's operations, in particular where large disposals of public money or other vital resources are involved. When some person or entity is entrusted with managing a vital public resource, such as a highway concession, the public has to know under what terms and conditions this is done. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that our country has an exceptionally high level of corruption and a very low level of citizens' trust in the public authorities. It is therefore crucial that the government responds adequately whenever doubts arise. And by far the best way is to expose all relevant facts to public scrutiny.”