Source: Danas
Expecting the decision of the Supreme Court of Serbia in the case of the charges pressed by the Ministry of Infrastructure
Belgrade - The decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss the charges pressed by the Ministry of Infrastructure against the Public Information Commissioner in the case of HorgoS-Pozega highway construction is more and more evident. Although in the Supreme Court today they say for Danas that the administrative dispute still lasts and that 'the documentation on the basis of which the decision will be made are being collected', the Public Information Commissioner, Rodoljub Sabic, is convinced that the decision will be to that the charges be dismissed.Should the Supreme Court of Serbia, however, accept the charges pressed by the Ministry, it would represent the deviation from the standpoint they used to take in previous cases -in the previous 14 cases the court has dismissed the charges pressed by the government bodies against the Public Information Commissioner's decisions. Sabic claims that 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 answer to the question what else is considered confidential in Serbia, can be drawn from the fact that a citizen had to fight through the Public Information Commissioner for the access to the information on how many registered vehicles "Trabant" and "Vartburg" there are in Serbia.
The Public Information Commissioner explained for Danas that the contractual item in the Contract on Concession for the Construction of the HorgoS-Pozega Highway by which confidentiality is guaranteed, is opposite to the legal framework of Serbia, and that he therefore is almost certain that the Supreme Court will dismiss the charges pressed by the Ministry.
He reiterated in regard with this case, but also with potential similar ones in the future, that the full confidentiality of a contract is something that, in the modern circumstances, is even not the characteristic of defense and public security area contracts.
- I am convinced that the highest judicial body in Serbia is not and cannot be faced with any dilemma that there is a huge and obvious discrepancy between the provision such as the famous item 24.2 of the Contract on the Concession of the Highway HorgoS-Pozega and the regulations of our public legislation. On the basis of that paragraph, literally all the information on the construction and maintenance of the highway are considered confidential and the Serbian public cannot get any piece of information without the consent previously given by the foreign partner. Also, the provision can in no way represent the basis for the limitation of the public rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Law.
There have also been cases so far in which various government bodies tried to force the annulment of the Commissioner's decision by pressing charges to the Supreme court. Some of them got significant publicity. The Supreme Court has so far reached 14 dismissing decisions to the charges pressed by the government bodies, but only five of those mandatory decisions have been carried out. The Government bodies have mainly been carrying out the orders made by the highest judicial institution in Serbia which considered submitting the information that is less significant to the public, such as the request of a citizen that the Ministry of Interior answers the question of how many registered 'Trabant' and "Vartburg' vehicles.
Among nine decisions that despite the ordered measures and used up all legal remedies are still waiting to be implemented, the decision brought forth in the BIA case. As it was, BIA has been ordered in April 2006 to submit the information on how many requests for bugging and listening in were made in the course of 2005 to the Youth Initiative for Human Rights as well as the information of how many people were actually bugged and listened in.
Despite the decision having been made by the highest judicial body, Yugoslav Airways (JAT) has not yet answered the request made by a Belgrade journalist that a contract from the year 1998 be made publicly known. It was the contract on the provision of eight airplanes from the Airbus company. They told us in JAT that publishing the contract demands another contractual party's consent, but they could not even confirm that the consent was sought from the other party. As they say, the consent was not given by the Government of the Republic of Serbia as the owner of JAT, either. 'The contract has not been realized, but neither has it been anulled, so that nobody has either been damaged or has had benefit from it, they told us in JAT. The contract envisages the provision of eight airplanes A319, the model which is not even necessary for the domestic airways, the fact confirmed previously by the representatives of JAT, as well.
'Putevi Srbije' have only after the charges to the Supreme Court were dismissed acted on the request made by a citizen and submitted to him the listing of the toll tickets distribution on a particular toll collection line and in a limited timeframe as well as the evidence to the issued B category toll tickets distribution. In the opinion of Rodoljub Sabic, the case was interesting because the comparison of those data with the video recordings could show a huge discrepancy between the collected toll and the actual traffic rate.
According to the data obtained from the Public Information Commissioner, twenty other various government bodies filed complaints to the Supreme Court against the decisions made by the Commissioner. Fourteen cases were solved and by identical verdict - the charges were dismissed.
Sabic reminds that in all countries where it is guaranteed, the right to free access to information is limited only exceptionally. The public interest is present in any case. And when we talk about the contents of already famous 'blue cover pages', the interest is evident because the construction of this highway is one of the biggest examples of control over public funds.
