The Protector of Citizens asked the State Audit Institution to act upon citizens' requests in accordance with the law governing the work of that institution, i.e., to decide on received requests by issuing a decision on which there will be a right to appeal and the right to initiate an administrative dispute.
In the opinion sent to the SAI, after receiving information, based on the act of cooperation, from that institution on the complaint of a citizen regarding the nostrification of professional titles, the Protector of Citizens stated that the SAI should act by adopting decisions to reject or adopt the request, against which citizens will have the right on appeal.
The Protector of Citizens received a complaint from a citizen who addressed the SAI with a request to obtain a certificate for an auditing title-state auditor, i.e., nostrification of the professional title he holds, but that institution only informed him that the requested certificate is not a certificate of professional auditing titles within the competence of the SAI, and cannot be subject to nostrification.
In its statement to the Protector of Citizens, the SAI did not explicitly state how it acted upon the complainant's request for nostrification of professional titles acquired abroad and in what form it made a decision on the request, i.e., whether it conducted an administrative procedure and whether it passed an administrative act.
The Protector of Citizens determined that the SAI's response did not take the form of an administrative act to which the citizen would have the right to appeal, and that the SAI's response was written in the form of a notice without reason for refusal and without a decision with an instruction on legal remedy.
Accordingly, the Protector of Citizens believes that the SAI should act in accordance with Article 7 of the Law on the State Audit Institution.