Abstract
The purpose of the paper was to tracing the body of jurisprudence to the related to the
limits of protection of the private life of persons holding public office. A catalog of reasons
for restrictions is listed in the Law on Access to Public Information. However, it is an open
scope, so the courts, as a result of their analysis of the circumstances of a particular case,
are authorized to consider whether, due to the need to protect freedoms and rights, public
order, security or important economic interests of the state, there is a necessity to deny
access to information. One of the reasons for restricting access to information is the statutory
circumstance of protecting the privacy of a person performing public functions, to the extent
not related to the performance of such functions, and excluding the case where such a person
himself waives this right. However, due to the non-existence of a definition of such an entity
in common law to date, the courts are trying to clarify the meaning on their own when making
judgments for a given case. The difficulty of decoding this imprecise concept in practice raises
the risk of discrepancies in jurisprudence for relatively identical facts.