A Year of Concealed Information and False Claims

Serbia marks another International Right to Know Day, while problems in this field remain unresolved. Over the past year, in addition to the denial of important information upon request, numerous cases have been recorded in which public authorities falsely claimed that they did not possess the requested documents. Combined with the dysfunction of democratic institutions and the selective work of investigative bodies, this has raised government unaccountability in Serbia to an even higher level.

Although the application of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance is mandatory, in practice it increasingly depends on the goodwill of the authorities. Despite clear warnings from several annual reports of the Commissioner for Information, the Government and the National Assembly of Serbia have still not amended the Law in a way that would ensure efficient resolution of appeals in cases of denied access. Moreover, citizens and journalists still have no right to appeal when information is denied by the Government of Serbia, although under GRECO recommendations the deadline for introducing this right expired two years ago.

During the past year, Transparency Serbia requested numerous significant pieces of information from public authorities, some of which were withheld without any explanation, justified with false reasons, or most dangerously, accompanied by untrue statements that “the authority does not possess the requested documents.”

Following the tragedy in Novi Sad and the anti-corruption student and civic protests, the Serbian Government published a number of documents related to the railway reconstruction project to the Hungarian border. However, the same Government still does not publish even the contracts, let alone construction documentation, for many other infrastructure projects. The Ministry of Construction has not responded to a request for data on payments for projects contracted without applying the Law on Public Procurement, and the Ministry of Finance has withheld information on infrastructure projects omitted from the Fiscal Strategy. Similarly, the Government has still not disclosed information on COVID-19 procurements, even after the official declaration of the end of the pandemic.

The Administrative Court has failed for more than a year to decide on lawsuits filed by Transparency Serbia against the Government for withholding documents related to the amendment of the “Jadar” project decree and decisions not to hold public consultations on certain laws. We remind that the administrative dispute TS initiated against the Government over non-disclosure of information on the concession for Belgrade Airport (feasibility study) has now lasted eight years.

Although it is visible to everyone that bank branches operate inside many police stations (previously most often Komercijalna Banka, now Alta Bank), the Ministry of Interior claims that it has no contracts or agreements with banks, “nor any other legal basis” for such arrangements.

The Ministry of Interior also claims it does not possess documents on which it based the assessment of participants in the ruling coalition’s rally held on 12 April 2025 in front of the National Assembly, while neither the Ministry nor the Parking Service responded to a request concerning the parking of buses for that rally. The Ministry further claims it “does not possess” information on who approved the placement of tractors around Pionirski Park in March 2025, or who brought them there. Particularly absurd is the Ministry’s statement that it “does not possess” information on whether it had established the identity of masked individuals present in the park on 15 March 2025 and whether it controlled entry rather than providing a clear answer that such checks were conducted or not.

Ahead of this year’s elections in Zaječar and Kosjerić, many institutions failed to provide information on the basis for running incumbency-driven campaigns. The Ministry of Agriculture claimed it had “no consent” to disclose information on ministerial visits to farms; the Ministry of Justice claimed it had “no information” on whether the minister’s visit to Zaječar was official or which municipalities he had visited. The Football Association of Serbia asserted that it is not obliged to respond to requests at all. Numerous public institutions that had promotional stands at ruling coalition rallies in Belgrade and Niš insisted they “did not participate” and “were not invited,” while some state-owned enterprises (Post of Serbia, Srbijašume, Parking Service) did not respond at all.

These examples of denied access to information clearly show that this is not a matter of coincidence, but of deliberate concealment of data that could indicate the abuse of public resources and institutions for political gain, as well as the prevention of public oversight over the spending of tens of billions of euros on projects contracted non-transparently and without competition.