Posted on

IA in the working group for chapter 32 – Financial control

Our researcher, Marko Sošić, was appointed by the Government as a member of the working group for the preparation of negotiations on the accession of Montenegro to the EU concerning the negotiation chapter 32 – Financial control.

In this area, we have dealt with a number of issues related to the impact of the state audit’s work and the progress in the establishment of internal financial control in the public sector.

In addition to the working group for Chapter 32, IA has a representative in the working group for Chapter 23 – Judiciary and fundamental rights (Jovana Marović, PhD).

Posted on

Jovana Marović’s lecture

On Monday, April 8, 2013th, Jovana Marović held a lecture in the framework of the Public Policy School. She presented two topics:

– “The role of think tanks in public policy”

– “The role of Government and non-governmental actors in policy-making at EU level”

The topic (keywords):

Think Tank (definition, history, classification, activity), Policy cycle, Framework for think tank organization activities in Montenegro, decision-making procedures in the EU acquis, lobbying, interest groups in Brussels, democratic deficit.

Two-hour lecture was held at the PR Center in Podgorica.

Brief biography:

Jovana Marovic got her PhD at the Department of International and European Studies at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, with the dissertation “The structural problems of democracy in the EU political system.” At the same university got her master’s degree on theses: “EU Citizenship ” and “European Parliament”.

She dedicated almost the entire professional career to studying the European integration process, whether in lecturing, research or professional calling. She was the EU advisor at the Ministry’s of Foreign Affairs multilateral sector (2004-2007); Advisor for International Cooperation and European Integration at the President’s of the Budva Municipality Office (2007-2008). Since 2010 has been employed at the Institute alternative, first as a Senior Associate in the research, and then as a Research coordinator.

She has successfully completed several specialized diplomatic programs, including Diplomatic Academy “Gavro Vukovic” in organization both Faculty of Law in Podgorica and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since March 2012 she has been a member of the Government’s negotiating work group for Chapter XXIII – Judiciary and fundamental rights – in preparation for the Montenegro accession to the European Union.

The Public Policy school project is supported by the Commission for the allocation of gambling revenue and managed by the Institute alternative in collaboration with the Centre for Research and Monitoring (CEMI).

Posted on

Press release: Favoritism of political party donors in public procurements must be prevented

The Law on Political Parties Financing needs to be enhanced with the precise and detailed provisions which would prevent favoritism of parties’ donors who are during public procurement procedures.

Improvement of abovementioned provisions of the Law on Political Parties Financing is even of higher priority if we bear in mind that potential connection between public procurement procedures and political parties financing is emphasized by the European Union as a prerequisite for an effective fight against corruption, upon which Montenegro’s progress in membership talks with the EU depends.

The current Law prohibits parties to receive donations from legal entities and entrepreneurs and with them related persons who concluded procurement contract, in a period of two years before and from conclusion of the contract, as well as for the period of duration of the business relationship. Yet, there are numerous deficiencies of such provision. The “prohibition period” of two years after signing the contract is short because it coincides with only half of the Government’s full term, and leaves room for corruption in the second half of the regular mandate of the executive power. The Law on Public Procurement should thus also incorporate provision, which would specify that it is necessary to reject the bid of a legal entity which granted donations to a political party for a period of two years prior to the commencement of the procurement procedure. Only in this manner, the provision forbidding donations in a two-year period before concluding a public procurement procedure would be meaningful.

Furthermore, the Law envisages a fine from 10,000 to 20,000 euro for a political party which received the donors’ support in non-allowed conditions, but not for the legal entity or a person who made illicit donation. Hence, those persons should also be penalized. When it comes to the political parties financing and public procurement, it is important to note that the State Electoral Commission and the State Audit Institution have limited capacities to exercise oversight of the Law on Political Parties Financing. The Public Procurement Directorate should thus regularly update the list of bidders or legal entities which have concluded public procurement contracts by dates of bidding invitation in order to ensure the professional behavior of the SAI while auditing financial reports of political parties and report on the financing of political parties.

Jovana Marović
Research Coordinator

Posted on

Interview: Anticorruption legal framework must be consolidated

Interview with our research coordinator, Jovana Marović, for MINA news agency:

What, in your opinion, are the main flaws of the Montenegrin legislation when it comes to the fight against corruption?

In the European Commission’s opinion general framework for the fight against corruption in Montenegro has been established, but the legislation shows many shortcomings, while this legislation implementation is not efficient. The assessment of the general framework established for the fight against corruption is not entirely correct. It remains unclear why the public-private partnerships are not within the context of negotiations on Chapter 23, and the overall fight against corruption. It is also questionable why the definition of this framework is not in the Government Work plan for 2013 year, and what are the specific results of the previous two years work to creating a common legal framework for PPPs and concessions. The same remark applies to the Law on Concessions harmonization with relevant EU legislation, since the EC’s Montenegro Progress Report for 2012 underlined the need for harmonization. Precisely because of this law shortcomings, the imprecisely set institutional arrangements and overlapping responsibilities, as well as inadequate billing systems in concessions, concessionaires only in 2012 on behalf of arrears owed 12 million euro. In the absence of adequate legal, institutional and supervisory framework for PPPs and concessions, chances for corruption remain high.

When you take into account which legislation EC characterized as a good basis for the subject area regulation, as is the case with the Law on Public Procurement, besides the problem of inadequate actions control, the law is not fully in line with the acquis (eg shopping method regulation), nor has it adequately responded to the need for improving the anti-corruption policies and mechanisms. There is also an absence of institutional mechanism for monitoring and follow- up of defined anti-corruption norms and rules implementation (eg provision which prohibits the employment of persons involved in the procurement process for a two years period for a legal entity – the bidder who has signed a contract on Public Procurement).

It is necessary to change the Criminal Code provisions in part related to the precise definition of the offense of bribery, as well as the criminalization of undue influence on the judiciary.

With the need to eliminate the shortcomings of the anti-corruption legal framework, only the continuous implementation of regulations with adequate implementation control, can make fight against corruption more effective.

Do you think that, in order to effectively fight against corruption should start the procedure for the Law on the origin of the assets adoption, and opening of collaborators of the secret services files?

Initiative for adopting the Law on the origin of the assets exists in the region (for example, in Serbia currently are in the focus current activities concerning law preparation). The arguments most often heard in the direction of its approval are based on the need to fight against the so-called “Lateral corruption”, that would measure unjust enrichment of public official’s relatives, and that this law would be a significant contribution to the overall fight against corruption. However, regardless of some results that might come from the Law on origin of the property implementation, the experience of countries where this law was in effect are not positive. Thus, for example, in the Slovak Law on sources of assets 2005, concerning those who can’t prove the property origin, was in effect only for a month. The Act provisions had launched a huge number of cases and requests for verification of assets, which almost paralyzed the system.

What, in your opinion, should be the punishment for corruption when it comes to public officials?

Effective penalization for abuse of office by public officials can be achieved by the Article 45 of the Law on Offences implementation which specifies that “the offender shall not engage in occupation, activity or duty performed on a competent authority’s subscription or permission basis.”

The report on the screening of legislative alignment in Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights), the EC stresses that the Law on conflict of interest does not define adequate disclosure of public officials assets because it doesn’t check the content of applications in order to identify cases of illicit enrichment, and the criminal penalties provided in this Act are not sufficiently preventive. Therefore, in the direction of better criminal law regulation, provisions should specify the maximum penalties that exist in the European Union.

Do you think that the law should provide that acts of corruption and organized crime never expire?

The provisions prescribing that acts of corruption and organized crime are not becoming obsolete are necessary to incorporate at the Montenegrin legal framework. This would be good way to monitor practices in the region (Croatia, for example, in 2010 with Constitutional amendments resolved this issue). Offences of corruption and organized crime are difficult to prove, the provisions prescribing this offences never to expire, would be a positive step in their clarification.

Should the law regulate the seizure of illegally acquired property to apply retroactively?

The principle of retroactivity is not legal. The laws apply from the moment of coming into force. Retroactivity may affect the (in) security of the legal system and uncertainty among citizens.

Jovana Marović
Research Coordinator