An analysis of complaints submitted to the Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information (AZLP) indicates a growing trend of first-instance authorities failing to act on requests for free access to information, but also the practice of abusing that right in order to collect the costs of hiring lawyers, which reach two thousand euros per case.
The Agency for Information and Public Administration announced that the Agency Council, in the decision-making process regarding complaints filed in the first half of this year, noticed new practices of actively submitting requests for free access to information (FOI) from new non-governmental organizations.
"Which, in a short period of time, submit requests to a large number of parties subject to the Law on Free Access to Information requesting documentation that requires the processing of a larger volume of information for a longer period of time," the statement states.
As the Agency said, an analysis of the total number of complaints filed confirms the continued existence of a large trend of silence by the administration of first-instance bodies, which often await a decision from the AZLP Council ordering them to act on the submitted request for free access to information within 15 days of receiving the decision.
"The total number of 1.320 complaints filed and decided due to violations of procedural rules during the first half of the year is a clear indicator that the Agency is acting promptly to ensure that applicants are granted the right to access the requested information, and that the implementation of the legal procedure prescribed by substantive and procedural laws is not a burden on the users of requests for free access to information," the statement says.
It is stated that the Agency Council accepted the appeal in 692 cases and returned the case for retrial and decision-making.
As it is added, appeals were rejected in 270 cases, and the most common reason was the lack of possession of the requested information and the failure to determine the quality of the information submitted, which is not the legal authority of the Agency Council, but rather an assessment of the legality of the act/decision that is decided on the basis of the submitted request for free access to information.
The Agency pointed out that first-instance authorities very often resort to using the Law on SPI to decide on requests that are not requests for free access to information.
"By not giving the parties the right to obtain evidence in the form of documents for the purpose of conducting other procedures and exercising their own rights, this creates dissatisfaction among the applicant, who is guaranteed rights in all procedures, which are more closely defined by other laws," the Agency added in a statement.
They emphasized that parties must be informed at the very beginning that the essence of the Law on SPI is not to determine the legal/illegal conduct of first-instance bodies and violations of procedures, but to obtain possession of the document.
The Agency explained that the assessment of the legality of the actions of first-instance bodies is the responsibility of state bodies and institutions that guarantee security in a modern democratic society.
The statement states that during the decision-making process, the Agency Council also noticed that a lawyer representing over 15 parties was committing abuse by submitting a large number of requests for free access to information on a weekly basis.
"In a way that first-instance authorities are not able to make timely decisions in cases, which ultimately results in the collection of administrative dispute costs after the completion of the administrative dispute before the Administrative Court of Montenegro," the statement specifies.
As stated by the AZLP, the purpose of the requested information is not a meaning and goal in itself, but rather the collection of costs of hiring a lawyer, which often amounts to around two thousand euros per case.
The AZLP said that the Council, in the proceedings in which it determined the validity of the abuse of the right to free access to information, supported the legal position of the Ministry of Public Administration, which determined that the applicant abused the right to free access to information by submitting repetitive requests in a short period of time, and that a court epilogue in this specific administrative matter is expected in the coming period.
"The abuse of the right to SPI should be a demarcation line between the public's right to know and the right of individuals or organizations to obtain funds through the collection of administrative dispute costs, the amounts of which are not negligible," the AZLP pointed out.
They said that the Agency's information system registered 1.942 subjects subject to the Law on Free Access to Information in the first half of this year and that controllers conducted surveillance of 49 subjects with the aim of increasing proactivity in publishing information on websites.
"Easy searchability and accessibility of the requested information is the standard on which we base inspection supervision and indicate that users of SPI requests have information that will ultimately determine whether to contact the person obligated to implement it, especially at the local government level due to different methods of organization and jurisdiction," the statement states.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
