Posted on

News from the Council for the Development of NGOs

President of the managing board of the Institute Alternative, Stevo Muk, is one of the members of the Council for the Development of NGOs as a representative for “rule of law” area.

The inaugural session meeting of the Council was held on 15 September this year, and three sessions have been held since then. Council is chaired by the Minister without portfolio Marija Vučinović, President of the Council, and elected deputy at the inaugural session, Ana Novaković, the Executive Director of the Centre for Development of NGOs (CRNVO).

So far, the Council has raised several key questions:

  • Disadvantages of the Analysis of the institutional framework for the provision of activities related to the development of the NGO sector in Montenegro, which should reform, among other things, the system of financing of NGOs from the budget of Montenegro,
  • adoption of the Councils’ work program for the coming year,
  • status of NGO representatives in working groups for negotiating chapters,
  • programming /planning IPA funds for 2014,
  • unrealized activities from strategic documents for the development of NGOs,
  • conditions for the realization of the right by NGOs, to use state property, following the ”Civic house” model

Details:

  • At the inaugural session and at the following three sessions, the Council discussed the draft version of the Analyses of the institutional framework for the provision of activities related to the development of the NGO sector, prepared by the intersectoral working group in cooperation with the representatives of the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Finance and the Office for Cooperation with NGOs and two representatives of non-governmental organizations. It was concluded that the Analysis opened many important questions, but it did not give adequate and complete answers to the problems in practice; therefore the harmonization of the Analyses continues.

 

  • Opinions on the draft version of ”The Rules of Procedure of the Council” were exchanged, which is an internal document that defines the particular procedure, in order to clearly trace methodology and functioning of the Council over the next four years, and clarify those situations where the appropriate application of the Rules of Procedure of the Government is rather complicated. Among other suggestions, in addition, the proposal of the president of the IAs’ managing board, Stevo Muk, was approved and it consists of introducing an obligation to the Rules of Procedure of the Council, by which every session meeting record must obtain voting data of every specific Council member, on each agenda item.

 

  • The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (MFA) has been asked to provide information about the participation of NGO representatives in working groups for negotiating chapters as well as consultations with NGOs in the process of IPA II funds for the period 2014-2020. MFA has provided certain information and clarifications, however, since they did not submit all the required information on the issues, but only for negotiating chapters 23 and 24, Mr. Muk sent a proposal to amend the information on the work groups for all negotiating chapters. He also insisted on a definitive answer regarding the consultation with NGOs in the programming process of IPA II funds, for the period 2014-2020. During the discussion, it was noted that procedures data regarding the preparation of the Framework Agreement, which is the basis for the use of IPA funds (concluded between the Commission and the beneficiary country of IPA II funds and refers to the seven-year period) is unknown, and so are the specifics on the participation of NGOs in the process. Regarding the previously mentioned facts, different treatment of the “ownership” of the document issue has been emphasized (if it is belonging to the EC or the Government) which creates additional confusion, so it is concluded that the MFA should provide information on the ownership of a key document but in the sense of a clear addressing of the issue, concerning the NGO involvement in consultations , in the following period.

 

  • The Agenda contained the list of unfulfilled obligations in 2014 from two Action Plans, AP Strategy for the Development of NGOs and AP for the Chapter 23, which are under the authority of the Council and should be listed in Work plan of the Council for 2015. Considering that the revision of the AP for the negotiating chapter 23 can be expected soon, and an annual report on the implementation of the AP Strategy should be composed, the next step was adopted- composing of the Councils’ Work Plan for 2015 after the aforementioned revision. The Council should review the Plan, after considering the report on the AP Strategy in 2014.

 

  • Mr. Stevo Muk also requested information from the Government of Montenegro on negotiations (discussions) between the Government (the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Sustainable Development) with the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation (RBF), headquartered in New York, NGO Foundation “Fund for Active Citizenship” (FACT), non-governmental organization “Center for Democratic Transition” (CDT), NGO Foundation “Civic Alliance” (GA) and the capital Podgorica on installing a construction building called “Civic House”, in Podgorica. According to information from the media, the intention of the Government is to permanently assign these NGOs specific plot owned by the state of Montenegro, and Podgorica Capital will exempt these three NGOs/foundations from the payment of utilities while RBF would finance construction of the facility, which will be owned by previously mentioned NGOs. Without wishing to enter into the nature of the relationship of CDT, FACT, GA and RBF, which are private entities, the key question is whether the Government and the Capital would be willing to provide the same rights and conditions to other interested non-governmental organizations, in order to meet their office and work needs? The initiative in its entirety can be found here (in Montenegrin only!).

About the Council for the Development of NGOs:

The Council has a president (Government representative) and 22 members (11 representatives of the Government and 11 representatives of NGOs), appointed by the Government for a period of four years.

The main task of the Council is to:

  • monitor the implementation of the Strategy for Development of NGOs in Montenegro with its Action Plan for implementation, for the period 2014-2016 ; as well as the implementation of the Action Plan for the Chapter 23, Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, with reference to the cooperation with NGOs;
  • give opinions on draft legislation, i.e. the strategic and other documents relating to the operation and development of NGOs in Montenegro in order to create stimulating environment for their work;
  • initiate adoption of new legislation or amendments to existing one, in order to create stimulating environment for the operation and development of non-governmental organizations;
  • proposing to the Government of Montenegro priority areas of public interest and the amount of funding for projects or programs of non-governmental organizations, from the state budget;
  • encouraging and improving cooperation between the Government and public administration with non-governmental organizations in the country and abroad, as well as with relevant entities in the international community, etc.
Posted on

Press release: Rationalization of the number of employees at the local level must be a priority

Further rationalization of the number of employees in the municipalities is a priority and should be addressed in accordance with the previously conducted analysis, identified needs and revised regulations on internal organization and systematization.

Majority of municipalities in Montenegro still have a surplus of employees. Rationalization takes place slowly or not at all, despite the need for reducing the pressure on local budgets and the disproportion between the scope of the competence and number of employees at the local level. No municipality has yet adopted a plan to reduce staff, although it is the obligation of the Plan of reorganization of the public sector. This Plan has foreseen that by the end of 2016, local governments will have 1024 less employees and thus realize savings of up to 10 million euros.

The impossibility of determining the optimal number of employees in the municipalities indicates poor human resources planning. Improving the planning process does not benefit from the existence of the Plan for internal reorganization of the public sector, which includes an obligation to prepare an analysis of the optimal number of employees and in the third quarter of 2014. This Plan has, therefore, “dictated” the degree of rationalization of employees in public sector before a comprehensive analysis was actually implemented.

Municipalities have not developed capacities to manage human resources in the form of services that would consistently apply and utilize solutions for recruitment and promotion of the Civil Service Law. Nearly two years after the adoption of the Civil Service Law, preconditions for the due application at the local level have not been met.

Personnel records of employees are not updated regularly nor are they kept in all local governments, which makes monitoring and evaluation of their performance impossible. Implementation of the new performance appraisal system has difficulties in implementation at the local level: in 2013, the evaluation was not conducted at all in several municipalities (Bar, Kotor, Mojkovac, Nikšić, Pljevlja and Šavnik).

Jovana Marović
Research Coordinator

Posted on

Pros and cons of the announced reappointment of prosecutors

Opening of a public debate is a necessity, in order to once again review the possible pros and cons of the announced re-election of the state prosecutors and the way that this reappointment will eventually be conducted.

We believe that a long-term damage will be inflicted upon the State Prosecution Office, if the new prosecutors are to be elected in accordance with the current Law on State Prosecution Office, because this law does not regulate provisions relating to the assessment of the professional performance and previous results of the prosecutors.

The current Law on State Prosecution Office imposed the election of the heads of the state prosecution within the three months period and the election of state prosecutors within six months after the election date of the Prosecutorial Council.

Elections were postponed until the new Supreme State Prosecutor was elected, and in the meantime, state prosecutors filed an initiative to review the constitutionality of these provisions, holding that thus the continuity of administration of the state prosecutors, guaranteed by Constitution, is being violated. The main argument is that ”discontinuity ” of administration makes public prosecutors subject to political pressure and undermines their autonomy. International standards recommend that prosecutors should enjoy, through their professional career, continuity in their administration and that under no circumstances should they fear of the exclusion for political reasons.

However, the “permanence” of administration has made them vulnerable to idleness, so the possible re-election could be justified by serious evaluation and questioning of the prosecutors, in order to discover to what degree they meet professional criteria. It is suffice to say that the responsibility for the lack of results in the State Prosecution Office has been neglected for years. This is the reason why this issue is very important and should be approached with the utmost care. Any re-election would be an opportunity for serious reform of the State Prosecutor’s Office to ensure that only the best and most competent lawyers conduct these responsible administrations. It is necessary to pre-create the preconditions for the implementation of the general re-election.

In order for re-election to be fair, a precise and transparent system of assessment is needed, which will include objective criteria and indicators. However, even the latest European Commission report on Montenegro’s progress in October indicates that the recruitment and promotion system in the judiciary leaves considerable scope for influencing the independence of the judiciary. For example, electing system only abstractly defines assessment of “the ability to conduct prosecutorial administration” (60 points), “competence” (20 points) and “the knowledge” (20 points) with the listed sub-criteria that are very difficult to objectively measure.

The draft of the (new) Law on State Prosecution, which was subject of a public debate in July, introduces a system where the space for improvement exists and it is certainly more fundamental than the system put in force by the current Law. Even though it is a legal obligation, another postponement of re-election should be considered until the adoption of the new Law, so that long-term effects of re-election could be effective. With this in regard, we must particularly consider the provisions of the new law and improve them, minding the certainty of the general (re) election.

It is also necessary to open a public debate on re-election, before the public announcement, in order to provide an opportunity for all stakeholders, especially to the state prosecutors, to indicate the possible obstacles to fair evaluation. This particular note, bearing in mind the experience of Serbia where in the Office of Attorney General 700 judges at the beginning of 2010 were not re-elected to judicial office, initiated proceedings for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Until now 590 of them returned to work. According to the estimates of workers in the judiciary, the whole process could cost Serbia close to 15 million Euros.

Stevo Muk
President of the Managing Board

The article was originally published in the Section ‘Forum‘ of the daily newspaper Vijesti

Posted on

Under the Veil of Patriotism

Dina BajramspahićThe Government did not rush with the law drafting, but the Parliament needs to hurry with the deliberation. Emergency procedure or amendments, that is the question now.

The Law on State Prosecution, the Law on Special State Prosecution, the Law Amending the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law on Prevention of Corruption, the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interests, the Law on Financing of Political Parties, probably the Law on Confiscation of Assets Acquitted through Criminal Activity as well, and various others, will be drafted by the Government and sent to the Parliament for deliberation under urgent procedure.

The Government expects that the Parliament will deliberate on these bills and adopt them by the end of this year, although the Government itself worked on the draft laws during the last year and was criticized by the European Commission because of the delay.

The delay most probably occurred due to the seriousness of the subject matter of these laws and the willingness of the Government to make them better. This would be fine if the Parliament would be granted the same right instead of the requirement to speed up the process under the false veil of patriotism, the necessity of achieving European standards and ensuring advancement in the accession negotiation. Is there justification for adopting key legislation in the field of judicial reform and fight against corruption under emergency procedure?

Theoretically, the contribution of the Parliament to the adoption of good laws is measured by the amendments and interventions submitted with the aim of improving the bills, and not by the speed of their adoption. In other words, the amendments aimed at improving current laws are a true patriotic act. But, there will be no time for a fundamental review of these laws under existing circumstances. Especially when it is being announced that the Venice Commission and the European Commission praised the laws, which implies that this is sufficient reason for their immediate adoption. Emergency procedure implies that the Parliament lacks the capacity to deal with so many questions at the same time, which is correct, to some extent. But is it “more natural” to strengthen the legislative role of the Parliament or to avoid it?

In any case, the opinion of the Venice Commission and the European Commission, which all participants in the legislative process use as a method of abolishment of responsibility for the quality of these laws, are not available. On the other hand, versions of the draft laws that were put on a public hearing abound in problems and contradictory solutions, as was pointed out by the domestic NGOs.

Institute Alternative has participated in four public hearings and submitted written comments, which were subsequently submitted to the new Supreme State Prosecutor as well. We assumed that the Prosecutor would advocate for more serious reforms than those proposed in the draft laws, bearing in mind that he will be the one responsible for the results achieved. However, we are aware that there is no time for that, either. Whether the draft laws from the public hearings are improved and in what way will be known when the Government adopts the bills. After that, the only hope and responsibility for their improvement is in the hands of the Parliament.

Dina Bajramspahić

Public Policy Researcher

The text is originally published in the ”Forum” section of the Daily Newspaper Vijesti

Posted on

Initiative for proactive publishing of the criminal charges

Institute Alternative submitted an initiative last week to the Supreme State Prosecutor, in order to initiate the good practice of publishing of all the confirmed charges, on the internet portal of the State Prosecution.

Therefore, it is of common concern and significance for the future judicary reform to enable access to all the informations about criminal cases, that are led against senior citizens in Montenegro. Publicity principle of criminal proceedings, therefore of the trial, must not be understood narrowly and should not be based on the media reporting and the possiblity for the interested parties to follow trials in the coart, but also the access to the prosecution acts should be enabled in the same manner as it is for the judicary ones.

In other words, according to the international standards of openness which are in relation to the judiciary authorities, it is neccessery to initiate announcements of the confirmed criminal charges, where the anonymization of the personal data would be conducted according to the Law on personal data protection.

Considering common doubts that the judiciary is faced with political influence, therefore unsufficient thrust of the citizens, the availbility of the charges would show determination and ability of the State prosecution to efficiently and justly conduct investigations and prosecute criminal offenders.

There is an extremly important neccesity for the announcement of the charges for the subjects that are of common significance for public, such as area of corruption, organized crime, war crime, terrorism, etc.

Considering that there haven’t been announcements for the charges so far, we propose taking an even attitude and anonymization of all the charges.

The stance of the European Court of Human Rights, in relation to the privacy protection of the parties and other participants in the process, consists of grading ratio of the publicity and availability in every specific subject, taking into consideration the special characteristics of the concrete case and the legitimate concern which limits the public access to the concrete act (by anonymization)[1]. Also, the European Court of Human Rights has in various occasions determined that criminal acts can be discussed before bringing the final verdict of someones’ guilt by the courts. Therefore, publishing the information about the accused without any presumption that the person is considered guilty will not cause the violation of the law on the presumption of the innocence.

We hope that the State Prosecutor will answer positively to our initiative and therefore contribute to the building of the public trust in work of the State Prosecution.

Dina Bajramspahić

Public policy researcher

[1] See: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), B. and P. v The United Kingdom, 24. 4. 2001, par. 45-49.

[2] See, e.g. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, 26. 4. 1979, par 65.