The number of complaints against the republic is at least twice higher than against local authorities, when it comes to the field of free access to public information. There are many more problems at the state than at the local level. However, the fact is that even the amount of interesting information available to the republic authorities is much higher, thus the number of requests for access to them is higher – Rodoljub Sabic, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, has pointed out for the daily Danas. Sabic has recently been re-elected to another seven-year term of the Commissioner.
How do you assess the situation in the field of the right of free access to information of public importance in the last seven years in Serbia? How much progress has been made?
- I estimate it as much better than seven years ago, but at the same time as not good enough. Progress is evident, as judged by observers from the EU, CoE or OSCE, and according to the monitoring results of independent experts, we have probably made the most progress in the regional framework. However, the achieved level of transparency is still not in accordance with the needs for further democratization of society, especially the need to fight corruption.
Which public authorities have recently "progressed" in their compliance with the right of free access to information and which are "lagging behind"?
- It is not appropriate to draw conclusions just based on the number of complaints. This does not necessarily indicate their attitude to the right of free access to information. A typical example is, let’s say, the MoI. A great ministry, with a large number of organizational units, faced with a large number of requests, and consequently a greater number of complaints. In the last year, against the MoI 187 complaints have been filed which is, when talking about state authorities, the highest number. However, for several years the MOI has constantly been improving its relationship with the public and, in any case, I would not have ranked it among the worst in this regard. For example, although against the Ministry of Finance half of the above number of complaints has been filed, it certainly deserves a lower rating than the MoI. I say this bearing in mind the examples of non-transparency of broader importance whichof the action on the restitution has particularly been drastic and I had to warn the public about that.
Which authority complies with the obligation to respond to requests for information to the least extent? How many complaints have been filed?
- Violations of the Law are many, at all levels. While some of my colleagues in other countries have the power to conduct infringement proceedings and impose sanctions, the Serbian Commissioner has no authority even to institute the proceedings, and must expect the ministry responsible for supervising the implementation of the Law to do so. My associates have properly completed documentation for several thousand cases, in which an offense has obviously been committed, and forwarded it to the competent ministries, but only 200 or 300 proceedings have formally been instituted, and punitive measures have been taken against several dozen men. Everything else has become obsolete. Had the Commissioner been authorized to institute infringement proceedings I would have been able to guarantee that all of them would have been instituted.
What is your comment on the fact that most of the opposition parties in the Parliament did not want to deal with the election of the Commissioner?
- The election of the Commissioner was the first in the chain of elections of managers of independent authorities which we are yet, and with great difficulty, to establish. The contribution to their actual independence and authority should be made by all and it is important to establish some rules in this regard. Because, although it is understood that, as long as the election is performed by the Assembly, the majority, i.e. those in power, will have a decisive impact on the outcome, this should not be reduced to a simple counting of votes. Before the election, one should listen carefully to the views of all relevant factors - science, profession, civil society and of course, opposition.
The Coalition for Free Access to Information deems that the Law should be amended to so as to introduce the possibility of appeal to the Commissioner in the case when the Assembly, the President of the Republic of Serbia, the government, the Constitutional Court, the Public Prosecutor and the Supreme Court of Cassation fail to provide the citizens with access to information of public importance. What is your opinion on this?
- It is an old, from the standpoint of the principle of equality before the Law, quite logical and justified request of the Coalition. This solution was proposed at the time of adoption of the Law, but there was no political will for its acceptance. However, it is important to know that even if against the said authorities an appeal cannot be filed with the Commissioner that does not mean that the Law does not apply to them. It applies to them in the full capacity, only the way to protect rights is different - rather than filing an appeal with the Commissioner, a Lawsuit shall be filed with the Administrative Court. It is not good and one should seek an explanation why this remedy has rarely been used.
Chronic Problem of Workspace
For years you have complained about the resources available to the institution of the Commissioner. What is the current situation?
- Things have fortunately changed in the course of those years. Long gone is time when the state had forgotten, for more than half a year, to make available at least at a minimum working conditions to the Commissioner, failing to allocate a single dinar for that. What has been and has remained a chronic problem is the workspace. The number of employees of the Commissioner is lower than virtually in any of the former Yugoslav republics, although Serbia is much larger than some of them.
