A witness in the court proceedings in the "Morinj" case complained to the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data (AZLP) that two Podgorica courts had published his personal data, including his first and last name and residential address, without his consent.
It is particularly noteworthy that this witness, a citizen of Croatia, is worried about his safety and security precisely because of the publication of his address, considering that he had the capacity of a witness - a victim in the court proceedings in the "Morinj" case.
"In addition to the above, it is stated that the publication of the applicant's personal data, along with the amount of awarded costs in the name of compensation for non-material damage in relation to this person, may encourage any individual to commit certain illegal-fraudulent actions after seeing the public property status of this person and the address where he lives , that is, cause serious consequences, which is also indicated by the judgment of Alkaya against Turkey", the document states.
Addressing AZLP refers to the Basic and High Courts in Podgorica.
In the report on the performed supervision, it is stated that the Basic Court of Podgorica, without a valid legal basis from the Personal Data Protection Act, revealed the identity of the plaintiff, stating his name and surname, residential address, as well as the amount of costs awarded in the name of compensation for non-material damage and the amount of litigation costs .
At the end of December, the Basic Court informed AZLP that the verdict was removed from the website, then anonymized and posted again.
The decision of the AZLP Council states that the protection of personal data is provided to every person regardless of citizenship, residence, race, skin color, gender, language, religion, political and other beliefs...
"The advice of the AZLP indicates that the amount of compensation for non-material damage and the amount of the costs of the procedure do not represent personal data that needs to be anonymized in situations where data on the person's first and last name and residential address are previously protected, i.e. without revealing the identity of the person. However, in this particular case, the public publication of information on the amount of compensation for non-material damage in relation to this person, which, together with the identity of the person, forms an integral part of the verdict, may cause serious consequences and represent an impact on the right to privacy of the applicant - the plaintiff, which is indicated and in the judgment of Alkaya against Turkey", it is stated in the decision signed by the president of that body, Željko Rutović.
The Council of the AZLP did not order administrative measures, bearing in mind the statements of the Basic Court that during the procedure in the Judicial Information System (PRIS), due to the expiration of the deadline for anonymization, a non-anonymized verdict was published on the official website, which was then removed, anonymized again and published on the site, which was confirmed by subsequent verification of these allegations.
AZLP carried out supervision in the High Court as well. The High Court objected to the report on the supervision performed, in which it is pointed out that after anonymization, they publish the legally binding decision on their website, in accordance with the provisions of the Court Rules, and that in no case was the address of the injured party published. Also, it is stated that about 160 second-instance proceedings related to the compensation of non-material damage and regarding war crimes in the territory of Montenegro - Morinj were conducted before the High Court, and that all decisions in these cases, in accordance with the provisions of the Court Rules, are anonymized and published on the website.
"And that in six decisions, non-anonymized decisions were published due to the omission of the recorder who performs the anonymization, or due to a technical error by which, despite the anonymization, the non-anonymized decision was transferred from PRIS to the website," the document states.
The AZLP Council did not order administrative measures in this case either. That body rejected the High Court's objection to the surveillance record as groundless.
Bonus video:
