(Podgorica, September 23. 2013.) – After the reaction of the Tax Administration, in which its director Milan Lakicevic explains why he allegedly had to pull out the identification numbers from the web page of the Central business registry, confirms even more that the primary aim of this institution was, and still is, to hide information that could reveal new cases of corruption and organized crime. Obviously, the identical principal is using and the Land registry, which also cleared identification numbers from its online registry.
Lakicevic very well knows that the Agency for the protection of personal data and the free access to information could not, through a controller, using a record to order to the Tax Administration to remove identification numbers from the website of the Central business registry of the Commercial Court, because based on the Law on the protection of personal data that can be only done by a decision, and only by the decision of the Council of the Agency. As this, illegal, acting of the Agency can not be justification for Lakicevic’s decision to withdraw the identification numbers from the CRPS site and by doing that to make impossible investigating cases of corruption and organized crime.
If for Lakicevic was important to maintain the existing level of transparency in CRPS, he could use available legal mechanisms and initiate a proceeding against illegal record of the Agency’s controller, who was ordered to remove identification numbers. Thus, Lakicevic could for the beginning file an objection on the Agency’s record, and request to get a decision, instead of his immediate action to remove identification numbers. As well, using additional legal mechanisms in administrative proceeding and disputes, he could fight against the illegal actions of the Agency, rather than to carry out their illegal decisions.
Keeping in mind that the actions of the Agency’s controller were against the Law on protection of personal data, Lakicevic immediately, in case he wanted, could put back identification numbers on the CRPS site, instead of being focused on writing responses and trying to wash away the responsibility from himself for de facto blocking civil society and the media to investigate corruption and organized crime, to write about it and to file criminal charges, when police and prosecutors are not doing their job.
The Department of Real Estate acted in the same way, which decided based on the record of the Agency’s controller to remove identification numbers, rather than to carry legal proceeding and to secure respect for its own original law required to be available to the public.
It is known to everyone in Montenegro that removal of identification numbers from CRPS internet records and the Land registry disables that with absolute certainty any new case of corruption and organized crime to be determined, connection between public officials with members of organized crime through ownership structures of the companies or joint ownership of property or to prove that the public officials hide unlawfully gained assets. However, it is absurd that all of that is trying to be done under the cover of alleged protection of privacy and personal data, in the way that is opposite to views of the European court of human rights of EU standards.
When it comes to privacy protection, according to the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights, which is binding for the Montenegrin institutions, private life including physical and mental integrity, and guarantee given by the Article 8 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is primarily aimed to ensure, without outside suggestions, “the development of each individual in relation to other people” (Botta v. Italy, judgment of February 24th 1998, Reports of judgment and decisions 1998-I, p. 422, paragraph 32). In this case, the applicant did not prove that disclosure of personal data in public concerning membership in particular organization caused damage in this regard. However, he confirmed that “anyone could find out who is a member simply by checking the register of membership.” Consequently, the European court concluded that the disclosure of such information is not an interference with private life.
In this regard, it can not be talk about prohibited interference with private life by publishing data about people that submit data to the public registry and they just serve them as a connection with others. Under the public registries in this regard, certainly belong CRPS and the Land registry, from which the Montenegrin institutions removed people’s identification numbers.
Also, it is a question what kind of damage a person can suffer if in the CRPS public registry or the Land registry data are published that could be used to identify him or her, which should eliminate the suspicion that it is not about the other person. Moreover, the requirements of legal certainty, and requests as interests of persons who submit data to the CRPS or Land registry, impose the obligation to disclose information to the extent that could secure reliability, and which, on the other side, will not be present a disproportionate interference with personal rights.
In this case, the interests of the majority of the individuals whose data are in the CRPS and Land registry are publication to ensure the reliability in the establishment of business and professional relations with others, especially because those are people who have nothing to hide. The only ones who do not have this interest are corrupted public officials and people connected with them from the criminal milieu, who by all means try to conceal violation of Montenegrin laws and their illegally acquired assets, who obviously, have active support of the Tax Administration and Department of Real Estate.
Furthermore, the CRPS website publishes first and last names of people in companies, and the same information is available in the Montenegrin Land registry. Otherwise, first and last name is the primarily mean of identification of each individual. Using first and last names in the public legal aspect is fully compatible with the private life which includes the right to establish and develop relationships with others, either in a professional or business context, or some other (judgment Niemeitz v. Germany, December 16th 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p.33, paragraph 29). The right to establish personal and business relationships would be limited in the situation where only first and last name are published that are not sufficient and reliable information because we are seeing that in Montenegro there are many people with the same first and last names, and without additional information it is very difficult to know if in a certain case we have the same or different people. Even more, using other information in the public legal aspect, including identification number, compatible with private life, especially in the right to establish and develop relations with other people in professional and business context.
The mare publication of first and last names, which is now the case with the two Montenegrin registries, has undermined the publicity of the registers and prevents the minimum availability that the data from the public registers should have, because these data are not sufficient for someone’s precise identification. Moreover, the purpose of such register is brought into question, because essentially it is just fictitiously public. Therefore, we can not talk about interference with the right of individuals during publication f their identification numbers in registers, nor such interference may be disproportionate.
From all mentioned above it is clear that the Tax Administration and Department of real estate have an obligation to include sufficient data in the internet editions of CRPS and Land register that would be used to undoubtedly determine whether some person performs any function in a company or owns certain property, and not to by reducing the volume of data and clearing identification numbers they confuse, prevent the identification of people, reduce the reliability of the registers and make senseless their openness and transparency.
For that reason, once again we invite the Tax Administration and Department of real estate to comply with the practice of the European court of human rights and Montenegrin laws, to make cases of corruption and organized crimes easier for the investigation, which is Montenegro’s strategic priority in the process of EU integrations and to even on this day to return social security numbers in their internet registries. Otherwise, it will be clear that these institutions took an active role in covering corruption and organized crime all with a goal to protect persons who are involved in this affair, and some of which perform highest public functions.
