The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection finds the statement issued yesterday by the First Basic Court in Belgrade, insinuating the Commissioner's responsibility for a negative media campaign against that court, for harming the reputation of the Court and its employees, and for an illicit pressure on the work of the court and of the judiciary authority, an irresponsible attempt to drive the public attention from the inexplicable facts from the proceedings in which the Court has pronounced itself incompetent to carry out the execution of the enforced collection of financial fines that the Commissioner imposed, acting under the law, on the Higher Court in Belgrade.
The Commissioner is warning that it is unacceptable for anyone to try to hide negligent work, or even something worse, behind the principle of independent judiciary.
Stressing that the Commissioner has not only the right, but a legal obligation, to inform the public about all problems in reference to practicing the right to free information access, that the undisputed right of the media is to report on that, the Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic added the following:
"Except for disqualifications and insinuations on the account of the Commissioner and the media, the statement issued by the First Basic Court typically ignores a number of important factual and legal facts, and I will only mention some of them. The Court has, for example, offered a "legal explanation" for its actions, referring to Article 28 of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance (LFAIPI), without mentioning other relevant provisions of other laws.
In the above mentioned Article of the LFAIPI, it is stated, among other things:
"Commissioner's Decisions are binding, final and enforceable.
The administrative execution of Commissioner's decision is imposed by the Commissioner (coercive measures, or a financial fine), in accordance to the law regulating the General Administrative Procedure.
What if the fined party does not pay the fine? How is that fine executed? The answer to this question is found in Articles. 266 and 272 of the LGAP (law regulating the General Administrative Procedure that is the legal basis for the imposing of fines). Article 266 clearly and unequivocally states that "the execution for fulfilling financial obligations is carried out by the court" and article 272 states that "financial fines imposed based on this law are carried out by the organ competent for carrying out financial fines imposed for offences", which is, as foreseen by Article 299 of the Law on Minor Offences, the courts.
Although the First Basic Court is trying to "explain", incorrectly, the basis for its incompetence, it completely forgets to explain the basis for its competence in a previous case that did not involve the Higher Court in Belgrade. It should, however be aware that the Copernican twist regarding the competence not only questions the consistence of that court, but also the knowledge and expertise of judges in all other courts in Serbia who the Commissioner addressed with an execution proposal and who saw themselves competent.
It is irresponsible for anyone, even the First Basic Court, to see a danger for the reputation and the independence of the judiciary in Commissioner's actions and in the media reporting, instead of recognizing it in the acts of the people from the judiciary, who have regardless whether they have been driven by false solidarity, respect for the hierarchy, or even something worse, raised serious doubt in the materialization of the essential role of the judiciary. "
