New Law Alters Judicial Costs for Accessing Information in Montenegro

Changes to the law regulating access to information in Montenegro will now require citizens who sue government institutions over withheld information to bear their own court costs, even if they win. This amendment, introduced by Vasilije Carapic of the political movement PES, has drawn criticism for potentially discouraging citizens from seeking transparency.

According to Darvin Muric, the editor of the portal Raskrinkavanje.me, the new provisions mean that if a citizen requests information about how public funds are spent and the institution fails to comply, they must take their case to the Administrative Court. While the court could rule in favor of the citizen, they will now be responsible for their own legal fees, along with the institution’s costs.

This amendment was passed at the end of last year despite warnings from international organizations that citizens should not be financially penalized for seeking information. In the adopted amendment, every party in an administrative dispute related to information access will bear its own costs, regardless of the outcome. Muric highlighted that this represents a shift from previous proposals that would have placed all financial responsibility on the citizen or organization filing the complaint.

Carapic defended his proposal by stating it would prevent misuse of the law for trivial requests, such as demands for outdated school records. Nonetheless, Muric pointed out that similar provisions were proposed by the former ruling party, DPS, in 2019, indicating a continuation of practices that may dissuade citizens and NGOs from utilizing the right to information.

The implications of these changes are significant, as they send a message that institutions can withhold information without facing consequences. Milica Kovacevic, the program director at the Center for Democratic Transition, noted that the amendments have severely weakened the law concerning access to information. She explained how citizens face considerable delays and obstacles when trying to obtain public information, which should already be readily available.

The process often requires citizens to wait months for the Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information (AZLP) to respond to their complaints. In many cases, even when AZLP rules in favor of the citizen, institutions may still choose to ignore the ruling, leading to further legal action that can take years to resolve.

Muric emphasized that the law concerning access to information is crucial for the public, NGOs, and journalists who rely on it for transparency. He expressed disappointment that the law, instead of enhancing access, now potentially encourages institutions to remain silent on citizen inquiries, effectively undermining the intent of the law itself.

Changes to the law on access to information have been awaited since 2017, with hopes that it would expand proactive transparency obligations. Instead, the recent amendment fosters an environment where institutions may feel emboldened to disregard information requests, knowing that few citizens will be willing to incur personal costs to pursue their legal rights.

The European Commission previously gave a positive assessment of the law but did not include Carapic’s amendment, highlighting the contentious nature of recent legislative changes in Montenegro regarding the balance between transparency and administrative silence.