Source: "Politika"
INTERVIEW: Rodoljub Sabic, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance
The state authorities should make a great number of information accessible to the public without anyone having to request them
The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection Rodoljub Sabic submitted to the National Assembly a work report for the previous year which shows an increase in the interest among the general public for the fulfillment of their rights, but the report also indicates that he is dealing with some old issues again.
The intervention of the Commissioner was fruitful in about 90 percent of cases and the person seeking information received the previously undisclosed data. What needs to be done for the result to be a hundred percent?
The results should be evaluated within the context of an increasing workload and the fact that the Commissioner, until April 2009, only had five employees, while towards the end of the year he had 11 instead of 69 who were planned. For the purpose of greater efficiency, it is necessary to increase the number of staff members. However, even then the Commissioner alone would not be able to ensure the efficient application of the law, since he does not have some, for that task very important, instruments. He makes decisions which are legally binding, but does not have the mechanisms at his disposal to ensure that institutions comply with his decisions. And the Government, which has the appropriate mechanisms, does not use them. Even though it is stated in the Law that «if there is a need, it will ensure the compliance with the Commissioner's decision», it never applied any such measure. That obviously has to change. Some other things, as well. But, the freedom of access to information encompasses more than just adequately addressing requests and complaints of citizens and the media; it encompasses the notion that the state authorities make a great number of information accessible to the public without anyone having to request them. In order to have things moving in the right direction, the increase in the decisiveness of the citizens and the media to utilize their rights is very important, and so is their realization that the fulfillment of their rights should not depend on anyone's good will. The greatest result in the application of our Law is the presence and the strengthening of this trend.
Why is the number of complaints filed against the Commissioner's decisions increasing?
More complaints have been filed to the Supreme Court against the Commissioner’s decisions by the state authorities than by the citizens whose complaints the Commissioner refused to address. This paradox is a consequence of the misuse of a clause in the Law, which states that proceedings can be initiated against the decision of the Commissioner. They can be initiated, but by whom? The laymen do not know, but the state authorities should know, because even law school students know that not in this case of requesting a free access to information or any other instance can a first degree institution file a complaint against a second degree authority. The Court dismissed all of these complaints, but new ones are still being filed. The complaints, which they know would be dismissed, are being filed in order to, until the court dismisses them, prolong the fulfillment of the public’s right to know. If for no other reason than common courtesy this waste of time and taxpayers’ money, those tax payers whose rights are being denied, needs to stop.
Due to a lack of efficiency of designated Ministries only seven percent out of 1,800 lawbreakers were held responsible. Are lawbreakers stimulated in this manner? Are you going to suggest some different, more efficient methods of punishment?
Those 1,800 cases were documented by the Commissioner’s services alone. If the state authorities kept count, the number of misdemeanors would have been a lot larger, and the percentage of punished lawbreakers even smaller, which is, of course, very stimulating for the lawbreakers. I believe that with regards to this and any other law that contains certain responsibilities of the state authorities, the authorities should be held accountable if they fail to fulfill their obligations. The state authorities have to give a positive, not a negative example. It is absurd for someone who does not fulfill his own obligations to be ‘enforcing the law’ among the citizens. I spoke to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Administration about certain initiatives to prolong the obsolescence period, increase the punishments and monitor the application of laws with more energy.
