Annual Report for the year 2012
On provision of information according to Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on free access to information
Numbers of accepted and settled requests for information
| Received in total | Settled directly | Transferred for settlement | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requests (Section 18 paragraph 1, letter a) | 56 | 53 | 0 |
| Appeal (Section 18 paragraph 1, letter b) | 5 | 5 | 0 |
Section 18 paragraph 1, letter a)
Number of requests made for information: 56
Section 18 paragraph 1, letter b)
Number of appeals made against ruling: 5
Section 18 paragraph 1, letter c)
Copy of significant parts of each court judgement: 0
Section 18 paragraph 1, letter d)
Calculation of provided exclusive licences: 0
Section 18 paragraph 1, letter e)
Number of complains filed pursuant to Section 16a,
reasons for filing and the method of processing: 3
- The applicant filed a complaint regarding the procedure on account of non-compliance with the time period for processing. The complaint was upheld by the decision of the appellate body.
- The applicant filed a complaint regarding the procedure in the matter of disclosure of the fee for the provision of information. Since the procedure applied to notification of the amount of the fee for the provision of information conformed to the Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on Free Access to Information, as amended, the complaint was dismissed.
- The applicant filed a complaint regarding the procedure in the matter of clarification of the statement of the Deputy Head of the Office of the President of the Republic regarding “homosexualism”. With respect to the statutory provisions the complaint was dismissed.
Section 18 paragraph 1, letter f)
Additional information:
As regards the requests, the situation of the previous years was repeated. In their requests applicants responded to all negotiations of the President of the Republic or the statements of some managing employees of the Office.
The previous year’s requests regarding the earnings of managing state employees of the Office of the President of the Republic were repeated. Such requests were dismissed with reference to legal regulations and to financial penalties which may be imposed if the regulations are infringed. Based on the legal action filed by one of the applicants and the subsequent court ruling, the Office of the President of the Republic was ordered to provide the information requested.
It can be stated that in 2012 the power of Internet communications appeared for the first time. Not only that the authority of such messages sent to the Office of the President of the Republic cannot be identified with absolute certainty (anonymity is virtually guaranteed), but the request of one author published on the computer contained the addendum on forwarding requests to the Office of the President of the Republic. And thus an absolutely identical text of the letter relating to activities of court executors was according to the Act No. 106/1999 Coll. sent to the Office of the President of the Republic from different citizens 21times. The Office of the President of the Republic dealt with all requests and processed them in accordance with the law.
In conclusion I state that the Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on Free Access to Information, as amended, is mostly misused by citizens. Ignorance of the law, which causes considerable difficulties in processing the requests, is not an exception.
In Prague, February 28, 2013