The Constitutional Court decided positively on the initiative of the civil sector and made a decision that officially revokes the decision to publish the lists of persons in self-isolation, which was made by the National Coordination Body for Infectious Diseases (NKT) on March 21.
Regarding that decision, the Government announced at the time that "it was made after it was established that certain persons are violating the measure, exposing the whole of Montenegro to a high risk".
"The Constitutional Court, in case U-II number 22/20, issued a Decision on revoking the NKT Decision on publishing the names of persons in self-isolation, number 8-501/20-129, dated March 21, 2020, and it ceases to be valid on the date of publication of this Decision ", it is stated in the announcement from the XNUMXth session of the Constitutional Court, which was held today.
The Constitutional Court initiated the procedure for the review of the constitutionality of the NKT decision, at the initiative of the NGO Civil Alliance, at its session on May 29.
As "Vijesti" previously reported, the judge-reporter is of the opinion that the publication of personal data about people in self-isolation creates a presumption for their stigmatization, as well as that their data can be used by an unlimited number of citizens. It also may have deterred those who needed medical attention from seeking help.
Although the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data, headed by Sreten Radonjić, gave a positive opinion to the NKT, the judge-reporter believes that it was still not according to the law because less restrictive measures were not considered and because the citizens did not give their consent for their personal data to be published.
The Government's decision to publish the names of persons in self-isolation was criticized by almost all relevant non-governmental organizations that deal with the protection of human rights. Center for Civic Education, Action for Human Rights, Civic Alliance, Center for Democratic Transition are unanimous in their assessment that the decision is a serious violation of the right to privacy.
Bonus video:
