Does the publication of JMBG in public registers violate the privacy of individuals in companies? Is the interest of some of them (not all) that these data are not published, more important than the interest of the public to have access to information from public registers to the extent that will exclude dilemmas, misconceptions and any ambiguities?
I agree with the assessment that the claim that European standards are in favor of deleting JMBG from public registers is false. Also, the current laws of Montenegro prescribe the obligation to publish these personal data in public registers. And the practice of the European Court of Human Rights supports the position that the publication of personal data in public registers does not violate the right to privacy.
However, in order to better understand which interest should be prioritized, I think that things should be viewed practically. If we start from the aspect of a businessman or a company that wants to know with whom it does business, things could be set up as follows:
That businessman or company has a legitimate right to decide for themselves who they will do business with. They have the right and interest not to do business with persons suspected or suspected of corruption or organized crime. I would like someone from the Tax Administration, the Real Estate Administration and especially the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data to explain to me how such persons can be sure that they will not conclude business with persons they do not trust, that is, with whom they do not want to do business.
For example, if a company offers them cooperation, how will they know that behind that company are not, for example, Darko Šarić, Stanko Subotić, Safet Kalić, Branislav Mićunović, Milo Đukanović, Svetozar Marović... or someone close to them? Why did I mention these faces? Well, for the simple reason that these are people I don't think any honest person would want to do business with. Each of those listed had or still has companies and each of them was and still is suspected of being involved in corruption and organized crime. Is the interest of these persons to hide information about companies controlled by them or persons close to them, more important than the interest of others who do not want to do business with them?
Perhaps it is impossible for the Tax Administration, the Real Estate Administration and the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data to imagine that there is someone who would not do business with the listed persons, but I am sure that there are still honest businessmen and companies.
In the same way, how can a citizen who, for example, would like to buy an apartment be sure that he is not buying it from one of the fraudsters who are not few in Montenegro and who had the practice of selling the same apartment several times? Is the interest of those fraudsters to "protect privacy" more important than the interest of any citizen to avoid doing business with them and the risk of being defrauded?
How the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data understands privacy and how it perceives its function has been demonstrated several times. I will remind you that the court has already determined that the Agency illegally carried out surveillance and passed illegal acts against MANS precisely in relation to the publication of registration numbers. Also, that Agency ex officio initiated proceedings against MANS for the protection of the privacy of Branislav Mićunović. They say that they read the newspaper and saw how Vanja Ćalović was threatening the personal rights of the controversial businessman. Although the court found that the Agency does not have the authority to order the taking of measures through the inspection report, it ordered the Tax and Real Estate Administration to delete JMBG. The attitude of the court and the laws were not a hindrance to them. These institutions, of course, acted on an illegal order. Privacy is at stake! Or maybe something else?
We also heard an interesting position from the Agency that complying with MANS's request to publish the ID numbers in public registers would be "slaughtering an ox for a pound of meat", because the rights of others would be endangered due to the "smaller number of criminals". It would be good for the public to know on what basis the Agency knows that the number of criminals who own companies is small. Nevertheless, regardless of that, if the Agency's logic were to be applied in the police, it could look like this: "You must not raid and search an establishment even though it is known that there is a kilo of cocaine in it. We cannot endanger privacy because of a kilo of cocaine. of all the guests in the bar!"
Of course, the Agency is not always guided by the "kilo of meat" logic either. When it comes to Branislav Mićunović, she started the procedure to protect his privacy ex officio. She never did that for other citizens. It seems that the "kilo of meat" is still a reason for the Agency to act. It only matters whose weight it is. Some kilos have enjoyed the protection of government authorities for too long to hide it now with "privacy protection". The condescension and half-heartedness shown by state institutions towards the "smaller number of criminals" has long since become intolerable.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
