The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection estimates that the rise of already kosistently large number of complaints that the citizens, the media and others submit to the Commissioner indicates a disturbing attitude of many state bodies to the rights defined by the Free Access to Information Law and Personal Data Protection Law.

While stating that the so-called "election atmosphere" may perhaps explain such an attitude, but not justify it, the Commissioner stressed that the primary, basic task of the executive branch is the execution of laws, and the realization and protection of citizen's rights within that execution, underlining that the omission to fulfill this obligation cannot be justified by anything.

Rodoljub Sabic said the following in relation to this issue:

"In the first half of this month, the Commissioner's Office registered over 250 cases. In the previous month, in April, there were 517, in March 475. This pace makes it probable that the number of registered cases in 2012 could reach up to 6,000, or 30% more than in 2011, when a rise of around 40% was registered in comparison to 2010. And these are only cases that are in a formal procedure. The number of citizens' informal complaints and contacts is at least a few times higher.

It is also obvious that the number of cases on personal data protection is growing fast (around 500 from the beginning of the year), but the majority of the complaints is in reference to the freedom of information access.

Such a big number of cases is a double source of concern. Firstly, a big number, even the majority, of complaints could have been avoided with a more responsible and fair attitude of the first instance organs to citizens' requests. They often even do not act upon completely undisputable requests. In addition to that, taking into consideration that the Commissioner, suffering from a chronic lack of working conditions, works in a severely understaffed office, it is not possible to respond to complaints in a time frame that is both desired and prescribed by the law.

Insufficient transparency in public financing deserves special attention. It is high time to make it indisputably clear that any problem in accessing the information on the allocation of public, budget funds is an absolutely undesirable and a concerning matter. The acceptance and the respect of the fact that a full visibility of the public funds allocation on all levels, as an irreplaceable mechanism of public control of the state, and perhaps the most powerful tool in the fight against corruption, misuse and irrationality belongs to the set of necessary presumptions for the realization of Serbian announced and required results in the fight against corruption."