The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has passed a decision ordering the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade to make publicly available information about whether the Deputy Higher Public Prosecutor in charge of the “Savamala” case had notified the Higher Public Prosecutor in Belgrade, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Government or a competent body of the National Assembly that the police had failed to act on his requests and urgings and whether disciplinary reports had been filed against the persons who refused to respond to the requests and urgings of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Commissioner also ordered the respondent to provide the requester with the reference numbers of the documents containing the requested information, if they exist.
The Commissioner found the claims raised by the Prosecutor’s Office, namely that disclosure of this information would “affect further work of all bodies that are involved in shedding light on this criminal case”, to be unacceptable.
Indeed, the opposite is the case: as the requested information includes only the reference numbers of certain notices and requests, if those exist, it is obvious from the very nature of that information that its disclosure cannot cause any harm.
According to Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police and other public authorities responsible for discovering criminal offences are required to comply with every request of the competent public prosecutor and, if the police or any other authority does not comply with such request, the public prosecutor will immediately notify thereof the head of that authority, and may, if needed, also notify the competent minister, the Government or the competent working body of the National Assembly. The CPC further stipulates that, If within 24 hours of the time when the notification was received the police or other public authority fails to comply with the request of the public prosecutor, the public prosecutor may request the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the person whom he believes to be responsible for not complying with his request.
Thus, the information concerned refers to the manner and legality of operation of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade and, as such, is a completely legitimate subject of public interest and its disclosure cannot cause any harm.
As the Commissioner acted on the claims made in this specific complaint, by passing this decision he has allowed public access to only certain pieces of information relating to the “Savamala” case. The Commissioner warns it is not a good sign that citizens and journalists are increasingly submitting freedom of information requests to him relating to this case and he maintains that the competent authorities ought to have provided much more relevant information about this case to the public long ago, without waiting for the Commissioner to intervene. The already unquestionable public interest in accessing this information has only been reinforced by the lack of any information over the course of many months. This case has been in the eye of the Serbian and international public and has even adversely affected the country’s EU accession negotiations; even more importantly, it perpetuates and adds to the already high level of suspicion among many citizens about the correctness and legality of the actions undertaken by the competent authorities in this case.
