The Commissioner for Information of Public Interest and Personal Data Protection Rodoljub Sabic and the Ombudsman Sasa Jankovic expressed deep concern following reports that the communications of the head of state Tomislav Nikolic and the deputy prime minister Aleksandar Vucic have been targets of illegal surveillance.

This represents a most dramatic demonstration of seriousness and relevance of the results of  their controls and findings presented some three months ago, testifying of massive illegal invasions into the privacy of communications - reaching up to a million a year - and indicating that the doors were wide open for abuse. According to available information, Nikolic's and Vucic's communications were subject to unconstitutional surveillance, precisely in the ways described in detail by the Ombudsman and the Commissioner who had established  that the citizens have been exposed to such a surveillance on a daily basis.

The Commissioner and the Ombudsman expressed hope that the perpetrators would be promptly identified and punished, but also that upon this, 14 measures proposed by two control authorities would be applied. These measures which the competent authorities of executive power have so far only verbally supported, are to reduce normative and practical freedom which exists presently of unconstitutional and unacceptably dangerous intrusion into personal communications.

In early 2012, after more than a year of review, and as suggested by the Ombudsman and the Commissioner, the Constitutional Court of Serbia declared as unconstitutional the  provisions of the military security services that allowed obtaining listings and other information on the conversations, without the court's decision but based only on a decision of a director of service or a person authorized by him. This was leaving huge potential for abuse. The police advised the Commissioner and the Ombudsman at that time that they would continue to access listings without the court's decision because the Code of Criminal Procedures authorized them to proceed in such a way. Since such an "authorisation" is patently unconstitutional, as is the case with the Law on Military Security Services, the Commissioner and the Ombudsman initiated proceedings of questioning the constitutionality of the Code of Criminal Procedures itself proposing to the Constitutional Court to take a temporary injunction suspending the application of the challenged legal provision until the
decision on the constitutionality of the CCP is adopted.