The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection appealed yesterday to the Government, as a proponent, and to the MPs to once again, in the procedure of adopting the Law, with due diligence and responsibly evaluate the justification of adopting the proposed legal solutions, opting for those that can achieve the desired objectives in the manner least invasive regarding the citizens’ privacy, and minimally risky regarding their personal data.

Based on the Commissioner’s appeal the Ministry of Construction, Traffic and Infrastructure has publicly stated that it has been "unpleasantly surprised" because it has adopted all complaints the Commissioner gave during the procedure, and have received a letter from the Commissioner, stating that he "regarding the Commissioner’s competence does not have any objections to the Draft Law."

The quotes of the Ministry are correct. But the Ministry is keeping silent abouth the most important fact that it is the authorized proponent for selection of the specific solution, and not the Commissioner. Accordingly, out of several possible solutions the proponent has opted for one, in the form of an entirely new system of building managers. This solution is not contrary to the Constitution nor the Law on Personal Data Protection, it is legally possible. Therefore the Commissioner "from the point of his competence„ might not have formal objections to it.

This is exactly why, and considering that primarily serious attention is deserving the fact that processing of a huge number of personal data of millions of citizens, shall be entrusted to completely new, still non-existing structures. In relation to it, in the context of (lack of) competence, (in)experience, lack of practice and standards, a series of questions can be raised regarding safety, i.e. keeping of those data, and the Commissioner opted to appeal to the proponent and to the MPs.

Everything further on lays in their hands and is a matter of their responsibility.

The proponent has the opportunity to, according to one’s opinion on responsibility, also discuss and ignore the Commissioner’s appeal and the facts he points out to. But it is not good to keep silent about the essential facts, deliberately or not, and to try presenting a benevolent appeal in an ugly light.