Source: Danas
The Statement of the Commissioner for the Information of Public Significance
Belgrade - In regard to text 'The confirmation of confidentiality would be a precedent', published on Thursday, August 16 in the Danas newspaper and the response made by Telekom, published two days later, a written statement of Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for the Information of Public Significance, arrived yesterday to our premises. Here is the statement which we hereby publish in its entirety:
"By mistake made by one of the Commisioner's associates, no information on the fact that Telekom actually carried out the order contained in the Decision of the Public Information Commissioner after it was decided so by the the Supreme Court. I regret the mistake having been made, but I however think that the mistake did no crucial harm to informing the public in a fair and truthful manner on Telekom's standing towards the obligations from the Law on Free Access to information.I however fear serious misunderstanding that can be caused by the text published by Danas according to which ''all charges have been rejected by the Supreme Court as unjustified, so that a mandatory order was given to all government bodies to provide information.'' My perplexion by the fact that such text was published in Danas is augmented by the fact that you in Danas, on your request, were provided by the statement given by the Public Information Commissioner on August 15, 2007 to the Beta news agency. The same statement can be found on the web-site www.poverenik.org.yu. The relevant part of the statement is: 'In the previous 15 cases the verdict was identical - the charges were dropped. In this way, the Court has through utterly stable practice shown the standpoint it takes on the matter of the right to free access to information and the right of government bodies to initiate disputes on the matter.'
The Supreme Court, has therefore, not rejected the charges, but dismissed them as impermissible. Lawyers of course, know, but also laics who deal with such matters should have to know that the difference between rejecting and dismissal of charges is enormous. The Court has by repeated dismissal of charges reiterated the standpoint that the right to initiate administrative disputes belongs only to the entity the right of which/whom was the object of debate.
The body that decided in the first degree on the right (in this particular case - Telekom) does not have the right to initiate a dispute against the decision brought forth by the second degree body (the Commissioner). Thus all these charges including the charges pressed by Telekom are illicit and unjustified. All the parties having been compelled to follow such order, including Telekom, were obliged to act by the Commissioner's decision, meeting the deadline referred to in the decision. Besides, the management, and especially the lawyers from government bodies and state-owned companies, should have to know that even in situations in which it could be perceived as justified, pressing the charges in an administrative dispute does not by itself delay the execution of the final administrative act such as the Public Information Commissioner's decision. The mistake that we mentioned cannot therefore change a negative qualification already given to Telekom for its treatment of free access to information. But, by all means, those who allowed themselves to ignore their liabilities prescribed by the law even after the Supreme Court dismissed their unjustified charges, deserve qualifications that are by far more negative than Telekom's''.
