Ro
En
Рy
Alina Radu, journalist
“I think that every reporter every day has difficulties with obtaining information. It is disturbing in the situation when all public institutions maintain, on public money, websites, computers, and electronic databases, where we as reporters could have access to all the information we need. In reality, things are different. We are still forced to send information requests and are frustrated when we fail to access the information we need.
The conclusions in this study and in these modifications are very good. I believe that some of them should be considered more carefully, so that if we return to the parliament, we could return with a better version.”
Ion Bunduchi, executive director of APEL association
“We welcome this initiative of modifications to the law and I believe that it is a sufficient argument to justify our demands of other time limits for provision of information, especially since we live in the Information Age and the information no longer has to be searched in archives, but is easily accessible. We fully support the reduction of time limits for provision of information and the introduction of harsher penalties for delayed provision of information or provision of incorrect information.
It is a serious problem, and we, journalists and civil servants, should understand that no one can be the owner of information of public interest. Based on this understanding, we might more easily come to that balance, so that when we request information of public interest, we might obtain it on time. Not because it is a journalists’ whim, but because we, citizens, are interested in having information as quickly as possible.”
Tatiana Puiu, media law expert
“It is a problem, because the current legislation demands oral or written requests to be made to information providers in order to obtain information of public interest. In this situation, journalists first request information orally, but are refused, because according to the current legislation any request must be registered as indicated by the law on registers. It is unacceptable. For a long time already, since 2001, EU member countries, including Romania, have had laws that enable journalists to request information orally, within 24 hours. I believe we should discuss it for Moldova, too. I welcome the suggested modifications.”
Eugen Rîbca, media law expert
“Laws are adopted because the parliament has the function to adopt laws. But we have forgotten about parliamentary control. I believe that if separate evaluation was made in terms of access to information and freedom of expression, we would see very clear signals that civil servants are making up all kinds of tricks to justify the idea I started with: laws are adopted because they must be adopted, not because they must be complied with. We have the problem of parliamentary control and the fear of civil servants to provide information without bosses’ approval.
As for the draft law, I hope that it becomes a legislative initiative. This draft law will definitely entail no financial costs and it is an advantage.”
The above-mentioned draft law was presented as a legislative initiative by a group of MPs in June 2014, but the parliament failed to examine it before its mandate expired on November 30, 2014. In these conditions, a new legislative initiative is needed.
This Round Table became possible with the generous help of the American people through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The opinions here are those of authors and might not reflect the position of the USAID or the U.S. Government.
____________
