Source: Danas
Immediately after the New Year to the address of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection came, from one Belgrade weekly newspaper’s editorial office, two really interesting complaints confirming that our public, at least regarding interest for issues pertaining to hyper-current topic “goes with the European flows”, as “swine flu” pandemics is in global dimensions, that is, AH1N1 virus.
The weekly’s editorial office has before submitting the claims to the Commissioner, referring to the rights from the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance tried to receive information relevant for the quoted topic, on which the weekly newspaper wanted to write. Specifically, from the Institute for Immunology and Virusology „Torlak“ and the Institute for Public Health „Dr Milan Jovanovic Batut“ they have asked for insight into information from the contract on purchase and sales of vaccines for mandatory immunization in the Republic of Serbia, and from the second entity in addition to that answer to the question – is it true that based on tender which has been published for six months, a three years’ contract has been signed with company Sanofi Aventis?
Based on Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance both institutes were obliged to satisfy the request within 15 days, or to possibly, decline it by passing adequate decision with also adequate explanation. However, the institute „Torlak“ has simply ignored the quoted obligation, and it didn’t reply at all. And Institute „Batut“ gave an answer that could be marked as „anthological“. But before I explain why, one should be reminded of certain things. Primarily of the fact that our Law on Free Access to Information envisages that the authority, if it denies access to certain information is obliged to prove that in a specific case it is justified to do so in order to protect the prevailing interest, but that it should never decline access to information pertaining to endangering and protection of animals and health of humans and environment. So, regarding those information it is not permitted to try proving that the public does not have a justified interest to know.
It is worthy to remind ourselves also of the fact that the information have been requested practically simultaneously when the world (and our) public has been informed about the fact that the Health Commission of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has unanimously passed resolution requesting investigation based on “false” pandemics of AH1N1 flu. This resolution has powerfully confirmed on the global scope the legitimacy of the public to know all relevant information regarding AH1N1 pandemics. So, it is more than obvious that for a long time certain issues have been opened necessitating answers, on the global and domestic level, which is confirmed by the situation with catastrophic reply of citizens to the invitation to vaccinate.
And the quoted answer of Institute „Batut“ to one of those questions is:
„We hereby inform You that the information contained in the contract do not pertain to endangering or protection of the health of population..., or that they are of such nature that there is a justified interest of the public to know them. “Is it wrongful to evaluate it as „anthological“? What else to say about the claim that the information contained in the contract on purchase of the vaccine which should be received by almost half of the citizens of the state „do not pertain to the protection of the population’s health“ or that information about procurement of anything for which billions of dinars are spent, collected from taxes and contributions paid by the citizens of Serbia „are not of such nature that there is a justified interest of public to know them“? And it would be probably redundant to say that this „pearl“ is rare even for the conditions of our too rich „treasury“ of various „justifications“ for limiting the right of public, regardless if behind it hides lack of understanding of the right, contempt towards the right or something third, obviously this is unacceptable. The author is the Commissioner for Information.
