Removed cameras on PMF after lawsuit

The dean also assessed that the building is poorly secured, that there is not even a janitor, so, allegedly, it happened that animals were brought into the halls, drinks were brought in
283 views 2 comment(s)
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.
Ažurirano: 03.07.2012. 19:31h

Podgorica Basic Court judge Milica Vlahović ordered that, in the proceedings brought by two PMF professors, due to the installation of video surveillance in the amphitheatres and the corridor in front of the dean's office, prosecutors Dr. Jovan Mirković and Dr. Nevenka Antović, as well as the dean of that faculty, Predrag Stanišić, will be heard. and Bojan Obrenović, Director of the Personal Data Protection Agency.

In January of this year, Mirković and Antović filed a lawsuit against the University, the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and the state. They demanded the removal of video surveillance from the amphitheater and the corridor in front of the dean's office, which were installed in February last year, and removed immediately after the lawsuit was filed. Also, they are asking for 1.000 euros each in the name of compensation for non-material damages due to the violation of personal rights.

At the preliminary hearing, the attorney for the prosecutors, lawyer Veselin Radulović, pointed out that the data collected through video surveillance is personal data, that the plaintiffs' right to privacy has been violated, and that there is no evidence of the alleged actions that the University claims took place in amphitheatres.

"The agency did not take action to implement its decision for eight months," added Radulović.

There is no janitor, animals were brought into the halls

The college previously claimed that the cameras were only turned on at night, in order to protect the college's inventory, and that no one watched the footage, unless an incident occurred.

The dean also assessed that the building was poorly secured, that there was no janitor, so animals were allegedly brought into the halls, drinks were brought in, tobacco was consumed, and there were physical and verbal confrontations.

The representative of the University, lawyer Lazar Aković, said at yesterday's hearing that the lawsuit was unfounded, that it was not true that personal data was collected, that the defendant acted conscientiously and with the conviction that he was not violating the plaintiffs' right to privacy.

"They acted in a timely manner, according to the Agency's instructions and orders, although they are of the opinion that the Agency's decisions are incorrect and legally unsustainable," Aković said.

The Agency's lawyer, Maja Žunjić-Mitrović, stated that the institution does not feel responsible for the violation of personal data protection, because they passed a decision ordering the faculty to remove the cameras.

"The first defendant informed the Agency that he acted according to the decision and eliminated the irregularities, and the submission of that decision was a technical omission," Mitrović said.

Stanišić made the decision to introduce video surveillance in February of last year, and the Agency's officials conducted the first inspection in March and concluded that such video surveillance does not contradict the Personal Data Protection Act. Mirković and Antović then complained to the Council of the Agency, which in April decided that the University should remove the cameras from the amphitheater within 15 days.

The dean also assessed that the building is poorly secured, that there is not even a janitor, so, allegedly, it happened that animals were brought into the halls, drinks were brought in

When the Agency carried out another inspection in September, the employee of that institution stated that the University had not received the Council's decision and ordered the dean to carry out the inspection only when there are no classes in the amphitheatres. Mirković and Antović appealed to the Agency again in December last year, after which the official of that control body carried out a third inspection and concluded that the dean complied with the decisions from the Agency's minutes from September last year.

In January of this year, the prosecutors again objected to the Agency's records from September and December last year, considering that they contradict the decision made by the Council of that institution.

The trial continues on September 11.

Gallery

Bonus video: