Source: Danas
When it comes to the heated 'public debate' regarding the Information Law proposal, I thought it would be my responsibility to 'join' those who oppose this proposal. As a lawyer, my primary reasons for this decision were legal in character. Simply put, an array of measures and penalties contained in the initial proposal were directly opposed to certain clauses in the Constitution of Serbia and other relevant international documents.
Source: Blic
The Government has to ensure the control of all state secrets
The proposal of the Law on Confidential Information might be withdrawn from the Parliament if the expert public offers ‘enough evidence that the proposal violates the Constitution and citizens' rights', this was announced yesterday at a public debate by Gorana Pualic, State Secretary within the Ministry of Justice.
Source: Nedeljni Telegraf
Headline: What is Tadic allowed to keep secret
Subheading: The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and the
Ombudsman require access to top secrets
Source: Politika
If the proposal of the Law on Confidential Information is ratified by the Parliament, the secret masters will still be able to create secrets, but under a pretense of new democratic standards.
Immediately after the law proposal arrived to the Parliament without any previous consultations or debates with the expert public, a spontaneous and 'heated' discussion started regarding the proposed conceptual, legal and technical deficiencies of it.
Clauses that limit the authority and information access of the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection received a lot of attention.
Source: "Press"
Bill directly contravenes Serbian Constitution and European Convention
I do not know whether the Amending Law to the Law on Information will be adopted or not. The parliamentary outcome of the "fuss" about that Bill is in the domain of speculations with which I do not wish to deal. All the more so because that outcome depends on political constellations which are not based on solid, stable bases such as principles but can easily be changed as a possible subject of various political trades.
Personally, I think that this Bill should not be adopted, as I said a long time ago. I think that there are many cultural, political, sociological and, of course, legal reasons for that. As a lawyer, I will deal only with the legal reasons and let others speak about other reasons.
Source: "Danas"
In connection with the text "Food for Thought" ("Danas" daily, 18 August 2009)
Rodoljub Sabic
Reaction
In a text titled "Food for Thought", the author, Mr. Gajin, made the following opening statement: "My understanding of the Bill on Personal Data Confidentiality is considerably different from the attitudes which the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection presented about certain provisions of this Bill". That statement is true, I have nothing to add to it and I honestly feel a bit sorry because of that. Namely, I have recently written another Bill which deals with the same subject together with the young colleague and Prof. Dr. V. Vodinelic and Dr. Milenkovic, senior lecturer. At that time, we had the same attitudes as regards restriction of powers of the Commissioner and the Ombudsman set under the law. We then also agreed about the necessity of existence of other mechanisms, i.e. public authorities, which would also supervise this area and which would operate under control of the Government and the Parliament. We shared the pleasure of the fact that the Bill was supported by the Coalition of NGOs for Freedom of Access to Information, the entire professional community and, in the end, by several thousands of citizens who enabled it to became a formal Bill submitted to the Assembly by their signatures. I still have not backed on the attitudes which we shared then, but the young colleague obviously has.
