The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms determined that the Police Directorate (UP) violated the constitutional right to address a member of the Army of Montenegro, and related to his inclusion on the Interpol warrant.
"In this connection, the Protector points out the possibility of initiating an administrative dispute, which can be initiated even when the public law body has not adopted an administrative act, that is, it has not decided upon a party's complaint, or it has not undertaken an administrative activity, that is, it has not decided upon a party's complaint (silence of the administration)" , it is stated in the opinion of the deputy protector Mirjana Radović.
In September, he filed a complaint with the institution of the Protector against the work of the Department for International Operational Police Cooperation of the UP, stating that his human rights were violated and that his freedom of movement was threatened.
In December 2020, the complainant learned from the border police of Bosnia and Herzegovina that he was on "Interpol's blue warrant" and that, since then, when crossing state borders, he has been stopped, searched and detained for several hours each time.
He added that after that he sent an e-mail to the official address of Interpol Podgorica and that he did not receive any response.
He also stated that he has never been criminally prosecuted or punished, nor does he engage in any illegal activities, that he is an active soldier in the Army, which complicates the whole situation.
After the emergency, the UP submitted a statement that was classified as "internal". From the submitted statement, the Protector could not establish that the complainant's human rights were violated and that his freedom of movement was threatened.
"In this regard, the Protector directs the complainant to the possibility of contacting the Directorate for the Protection of Secret Data, which is competent to decide on the issuance of permission to natural persons for access to secret data of the 'internal' level of secrecy, in accordance with the 'need to know' principle, and all in accordance with the Law on Confidentiality of Data," Radović stated in his opinion.
In relation to the appeal to the UP and the applicant's right to good administration, the Protector notes that she did not respond to the complainant, although he addressed the official address of Interpol Podgorica twice less than two years ago.
The Protector observes that the non-submission of the UP's answer could objectively give the complainant the impression that due attention was not paid to his statements in the request and that he was not properly respected as a citizen.
"The delay of public administration bodies in making decisions and acting can cause dissatisfaction, injustice or serious damage to both public and private interests," Radović's opinion states.
She gave a recommendation to the UP to deliver an answer to the complainant and to act promptly in similar situations.
Bonus video:
