The Institution of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms found a failure in the regularity and legality of the work of the environmental inspection.
"... And to the detriment of the realization of the rights and legal interests of the complainant, because she did not take the necessary measures to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction with the Communal Police of the Municipality of Bar, which forwarded the initiative of the complainant to that inspection, considering it competent to act", it is stated , among other things, in the conclusions of the deputy protector Snezana Armenko.
The proceedings before the Protector refer to the excessive noise produced by the commotion and music from the children's playroom and the lack of action by the competent inspection regarding that problem.
The complainant filed a complaint with the Municipal Police in Bar. Acting on that report, the Municipal Police went to the scene in April last year, carried out surveillance, made an official note and forwarded it to the Environmental Inspection Department of the Directorate for Inspection Affairs for jurisdiction and action.
The Environmental Inspection informed the Municipal Police that it does not have the legal authority to carry out inspections in the children's playground, delivering the Government's decision on the conflict of jurisdiction from May 2020.
The municipal police stated that the ecological inspection is responsible for the problem of noise from the playground in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Protection against Noise in the Environment. They added that the Government's decision on the conflict of jurisdiction refers to the noise from the construction site, which is also the subject of the initiative, and which was resolved by the Municipal Police.
Due to the fact that the environmental inspection, which the Communal Police considers competent to act in this case, declared itself incompetent to act, in the opinion of the Protector, it was obliged to inform the complainant that there is a disagreement between the authorities on the competence to act on her report.
"Also, the environmental inspection failed to act in this case in accordance with the legal regulations that regulate jurisdiction and the procedure for resolving the conflict of jurisdiction and to take the necessary measures to resolve the said conflict of jurisdiction," according to Armenko's finding.
It also indicates that shifting responsibility from one authority to another is unacceptable.
Armenko recommended the inspection to immediately submit to the competent authority a proposal to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction regarding this complaint.
Bonus video:
