*
From 2001 to 2011, approximately 800 new laws were adopted in the Republic of Serbia. Many of them were previously non-existent in the Serbian legal system, which particularly applies to laws governing human rights and anti-monopolistic policies. The new legislation, as well as the provisions of the new Serbian Constitution, which was adopted in November 2006, were drawn up in keeping with the European Union practices, which also implied the establishment of autonomous and independent oversight regulatory authorities and bodies authorised to exercise the various fields of oversight and channel and regulate the public affairs or activities.
This presentation was drafted on the basis of annual reports for presented to the National Assembly in March 2012[1] by the independent, oversight and regulatory authorities. The latter bodies include the Anti-corruption Agency, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection. Because the parliamentary elections were scheduled in early March, these reports have not been considered by the existing National Assembly, which will be done by the next Assembly.
In the formal sense, because of the manner of their election, the (im)possibility of relieving the solitary representatives and stable sources of financing, the independent, oversight and regulatory authorities and bodies are vested with legal guarantees for acting and decision-making without involvement of the executive authorities, political factors and centres of power. According to the kinds of activity and public authorisations, they can be divided into two basic groups, namely: (1) the above mentioned authorities, the competence of which is aimed at and limited to human rights, prevention of corruption and oversight of personal, political, party and financial power and (2) regulatory and oversight authorities which monitor monopolies and prevent the abuse of monopoly in the commercial sector.
Despite the differences brought about by the provisions of law, profile and scope of competences and public authorisations and term within which the mentioned oversight and regulatory authorities are supposed to act, there are also at least two common, general characteristics of each of the three above-mentioned reports: (1) openness to the public and visible progress in real terms, as compared to the initial period of action and (2) strong resistance from parts of the executive and even judicial power and public sector to abandoning the earlier practice of using discretionary rights and misusing public authorisations. [2]
Key words: Anti-Corruption Agency, conflict of interest, laws, ombudsman, commissioner for information of public importance, human rights, data protection, complaints, results, measures, recommendations
* This overview was composed on the basis of annual reports of the Anti-Corruption Agency, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection for 2011.
[1] The summary and introduction (pp. 3-5) were written entirely by the editors. Only segments of the reports listed in the title above have been presented (pp. 5-48). In addition to summarizing, all the necessary editorial and other interventions were made for the same purpose in the text and tables, in accordance with the criteria and standards of this journal. Graphical charts were done by the editorial office.
[2] Editor's Note: The Commissioner and the Ombudsman instituted the proceedings for appraising the constitutionality of some provisions of the Electronic Communications Law and the Military Security Agency and Military Intelligence Agency Law in September 2010. Such provisions make it possible in some cases to depart from the general constitutional principle concerning the privacy of letters and other means of communication. It was only in late April 2011 that the Constitutional Court decided that these provisions are unconstitutional because they do not call for prior obtaining of a court decision.
Prepared by the SURVEY-RS editors
(Ile Kovačević and associates)
Reviewed by: Jasminka Jakovljević, Ombudsman Secretary General; Dr Zoran Stojiljković, Professor, Faculty of Political Sciences, Belgrade, Board President, Anti-Corruption Agency, and Rodoljub Šabić, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection
Translated by: Milutin Dovijanić
