Instead of complying with the request for access to information of public importance in the legally prescribed period and providing the requested information to "Transparency Serbia" organization, the Ministry of Economy delayed the whole process, and then incorrectly showed that the requested information on "Smederevo Ironworks" were protected and therefore could not be delivered. The Ministry also did not allow the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection to inspect the documents requested by "Transparency Serbia", and did not further act on his decision on the submission of the requested data, of which the Commissioner informed the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman found that not even the certainty of payment of fines that the Ministry of Economy eventually paid in the amount of 200,000 dinars, made this body comply with the law.

Monday, 18 January 2016

The Bill on Police purports to regulate internal affairs, organisation and powers of the Ministry of Interior, as well as other matters of relevance for the operation of the Ministry of Interior, although this goes substantially beyond the scope of police work and organisation and powers of the Police.

The effects of this discrepancy between the title of the Bill on Police and its subject matter is particularly evident in the chapter which pertains to internal and external control of police operations; thus, the Bill on Police apparently provides for the internal and external control of the Ministry of Interior. The arrangements proposed in the Bill on Police still fall short of introducing clearly defined mechanisms for democratic oversight of police work.

The authorities that are specifically designated in the Bill as external control bodies – and are even listed before the independent public authorities in charge of oversight and other authorised public authorities and bodies – are in fact not vested with any oversight powers under the Constitution. The assemblies of territorial autonomy and local self-government units, including city councils, would thus be entrusted with an oversight role, while the Protector of Citizens, as a constitutionally independent institution and the only institution explicitly authorised to oversee both the legality and the regularity of work of public authorities, is not specifically named as a body in charge of external control.

The text of the Bill will have to be improved as it pertains to rights of the child, especially with regard to child victims of criminal offences and child victims of violence, abuse and neglect, and as it pertains to security clearance procedures, special cases of termination of employment, polygraph interrogations, disciplinary liability for information “leaks” during ongoing investigations and public disclosure of information which violates citizens’ rights.

Tuesday, 12 January 2016

The Protector of Citizens has issued an Opinion to the Ministry of Interior in connection with the announced staff cuts at that Ministry. Nebojša Stefanović, Minister of Interior, announced in December 2015 that between 1300 and 1400 employees “who solicited bribes and engaged in corruption” would be dismissed by the end of the year.

The Opinion states it was found from the complaints received and the media coverage of the events that the relevant job classification rulebook had recently been amended to provide for “risk analysis” posts that had hitherto not existed and for which the complainants alleged there was no real need. It was also found that many employees had been transferred to those “risk analysis” posts in late 2015; however, the job classification rulebook was slated for an amendment in early 2016 which would see those posts dropped as a cost-cutting measure.

“If there are indeed 1400 ‘criminalised’ police officers currently on the force, addressing this matter by reorganisation and staff cuts is incompatible with the rule of law (especially if the measures involved are fictitious). Instead, this issue should and must be tackled exclusively by initiating relevant investigations, meting out punishment and dismissing those found guilty”, reads the Opinion of the Protector of Citizens.

Tuesday, 12 January 2016

Following the recommendation given by the Protector of Citizens in the Report of the Visit to the Preševo Reception Centre in September 2015, which was repeated in December of the same year during a visit to that institution, the competent authorities have erected a canopy at the entrance to the Centre which shelters refugees from precipitation while they stand in the line for registration.

The Protector of Citizens welcomes this improvement in the conditions of acceptance of refugees who transit through Serbia.