Commissioner for Information of Public Importance has evaluated that it is necessary that the MPs in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia should intervene by amending the Article 5 of the Proposal of the Police Act, make it more clear and precise, and eliminate possibility to, even indirectly, neglect certain solutions contained in the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest.

Following that, the Commissioner, Mr. Rodoljub Sabic has stated:

„Certain provisions of Article 5 of the Proposal of Police Act are controversial. By interpreting those provisions in a certain way, obligations of the police as a state body might be significantly reduced in relation to the obligations the other state bodies have.

Therefore, generally speaking, by greeting the stressing of the police obligation to inform the public on its work, I think it is necessary to intervene by amendments for practically all the other provisions of the same Article, in order to eliminate dilemmas opened by them.

For illustration, paragraph 3, Article 5 of the Proposal of the Police Act, envisages that the “police directly informs individuals and legal entities” about the issues from its competency, only when there is “a based interest”.  Simultaneously the provisions of Articles  4 and  5 of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest, the need to prove existence of interests has been eliminated, and it has been envisaged that everyone “has the right to access information of public interest“.

The paragraph 5 Article 5 of the Proposal of the Police Act envisages that access to information shall be denied „if it has to do about confidential data“, without envisaging any additional condition.  However, by the provisions of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest, besides else, the possibility has been envisaged to enable access to confidential information, but only in the case that due to their disclosure “no serious legal or other consequences might arise against interests protected under the Law, prevailing over the interests for access to information“.

The proposal of the Police Act envisages limiting of access to information if this would lead to  „possible undermining of someone's right to fair trial or it could influence the end result of any other judicial procedure“. The Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest gives opportunity to limit access to information if that would endanger, prevent or hinder fair trial or judicial procedure.  But, however it has  not to do with  probability, but in the case it would „endanger, prevent or hinder“. Therefore, it is about real threatening, prevention or hindering, not about something hypothetical.

If the  idea would be to reduce by the new Police Act, police obligations stipulated in the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest, then it should be done in a more direct and unbiased manner. In that way, with detrimental consequences in relation to leaving already set democratic standards, we would not have also the bad consequences deriving from unclear and inconsistent solutions in the legal order.  Assured that this, however, is not the case, and that those fluid formulations were not aimed to question the standards determined by the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest, I expect that the MPs in the National Assembly would re-formulate them by amendments, in order to make them more precise, understandable and  consistent“.