Posted on

The European Parliament Elections – Towards Winning Mandates for Achieving Greater Impact?

Research Coordinator Jovana Marović, participated in the symposium “Elections for the European Parliament – Through Mandates for a Greater Impact?“, which was held on 15 July 204, at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade.

The conference aimed at offering an analysis of the institutional and political outcomes of the European Parliament elections held in May 2014 from the perspectives of different academic disciplines. Therefore, it was divided into three panels within which the following topics were discussed: the election results and the new party structures within the European Parliament; changes in the inter-institutional structure of the EU following the elections; as well as the possible contribution of the election process towards exiting the structural and economic crisis the EU has been faced with for a long time.

The academic conference was organized within the project “Jean Monnet Module – Constitutional Politics of the European Union”. As a result, proceedings of the participants of the conference will be published.

Posted on

Policy Evaluation and Performance Audit

Together with the partners from the TEN Network – Centre for European Policy (CEP) from Belgrade and European Policy Institute (EPI) from Skopje, Institute Alternative will conduct a research about the connection between the policy evaluation and the performance audit in the coming year.

The project “Policy Evaluation and Performance Audit – On the Same or Parallel Tracks?” was supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) within the framework of the Regional Research Promotion Programme in the Western Balkans (RRPP). The RRPP is coordinated and operated by the Interfaculty Institute for Central and Eastern Europe (IICEE) at the University of Fribourg.

The RRPP aims to strengthen research capacities in the field of social sciences in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, by fostering specific reforms in these countries based on identifying the long-term implications of potential policy choices.

The project “Policy Evaluation and Performance Audit – On the Same or Parallel Track?” is focused on the analysis of these two mechanisms in Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia, as well as on the research of comparative practices in the six European Union member states. The findings of our research will be presented at the regional conference marking the completion of the project, which will be held in Belgrade, as well as at the International Conference on Public Policies, which will be held in Milan, in July 2015.

Each partner organization participated at the introductory seminar for supported projects held at the RRPP Local Coordination Unit in Serbia – Institute of Economic Sciences in Belgrade, on July 10, 2014. Research Coordinator Jovana Marović participated at the seminar in front of Institute Alternative.

Posted on

Press release: What about the Law on Special Prosecutor’s Office?

The semi-annual report on the implementation of the Action Plan for Chapter 23 “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights”, which was published by the Government of Montenegro on 10 July 2014, does not contain any proper information on the status of the Draft Law on Special Prosecutor’s Office.

Representatives of Institute Alternative participated in ten meetings of the Working Group, which were held in January and February 2014 (on 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 January, as well as on 6, 10, 13, 21, and 27 February), and submitted comments and suggestions on several drafts of the Law.

As previously stated, representative of Institute Alternative participated in the last Working Group meeting, held on 27 February. Following this meeting, on 28 February the then-current version was supposed to be agreed upon at the ministerial level, i.e. between Minister of Justice, Minister of Interior, and Acting Chief State Prosecutor.

Since then, four months and eleven days have passed. Despite our numerous attempts to get in touch with the officials in charge at the Ministry of Justice and find out about the continuation of work of the Working Group, we have not yet received an appropriate response.

According to the Plan for the implementation of conclusions from the Analysis of the organizational structure, capacities and authorities of the state bodies and administration bodies in combating organized crime and corruption, the public debate on the draft of this Law was envisaged for May or June 2014.

The public has the right to know which issues delayed publication of the Draft Law and prevented interested parties from participating constructively in improving this important legislation. The reform of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, which shall have jurisdiction to proceed in the cases of high corruption and organised crime, is one of the most important issues for further advancement in the negotiation process on Chapter 23.

Since the adoption of the Law in the Parliament is scheduled for October, we expresses concern that the opportunity to allow the public to contribute to building an effective institutional framework for fight against corruption and organized crime in Montenegro is being hindered.

This is corroborated by the practice of organizing public debates on several important pieces of legislation during the course of a single day, just as yesterday’s debate organised by the Ministry of Justice proved to be merely a formality.

Stevo MUK

President of the Managing Board

Related posts:

Posted on

Accountability for Corruption in Public Procurements Must be Determined

Key challenges in the area of public procurements in Montenegro are related to the following: inadequate supervision over the implementation of public procurement contracts, limited capacities of the authorities in charge of implementation of legislation in this area, lack of liability for violations of the Law on Public Procurement, as well as lack of transparency.

Supervision over implementation of public procurements remains worrisome, while strengthening of this control mechanism remains one of prerequisites for enhancing combat against corruption and a measure of progress in the negotiation process under Chapter 23 – Judiciary and Fundamental Rights. Control of public procurement procedures and contracts is under the jurisdiction of the Administration for Inspection Affairs which employs only one inspector for public procurements.

The most problematic issue in Montenegro is acknowledging liability for committed violations of the Law on Public Procurement. Among most frequent violations of the aforementioned Law is conclusion of significantly higher percentage of contracts based on direct agreement, as the least transparent procedure, than the one specified by law, as well as failure of contracting authorities to submit reports on public procurement. Data on misdemeanor liability for committed violations of the Law is not available in the reports of the competent institutions.

Number of corruption complaints in public procurements is still negligible. In 2013, there were no complaints about corruption in public procurements, while there were three about conflict of interests. There are still no judgments on corruption in public procurements.

Among other things, lack of transparency exists due to unavailability of each concluded contract on the portal of public procurement, as well as the inability of gaining insight into direct agreements.

Institute Alternative has participated today at the consultative hearing of the Anti-corruption Committee on the corruption risks in public procurements and suggested to MPs to make amendments towards improving the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Public Procurement, hence proposing the following: stipulating criminal liability for contracting authorities who submit false information; introducing negative references for the bidders who have previously violated their contractual obligations; and introducing adjustments to the manner of appointment of the president and the members of the State Commission for the Control of Public Procurement Procedures.

The entire statement of IA’s representative at the parliamentary hearing can be read here (in Montenegrin only).

Posted on

Closing Conference: “Corruption at the Local Level – Zero Tolerance!”

The Closing Conference within the framework of the project “Corruption at the Local Level – Zero Tolerance!”, supported by the European Union through the EU Delegation to Montenegro and IPA 2011, and co-financed by the Royal Norwegian Embassy, was held on Monday, June 30.

During the past 18 months, this project was jointly implemented by Centre for Civic Education (CCE), Institute Alternative (IA), NGO Nada, and NGO Bonum.

During the implementation of this project, the focus was placed on identifying key issues in the high-risk corruption areas at the local level. It resulted in formulation of the proposal of priority measures for improvement that have been defined within six studies, a guide for local officials and councillors, and four monitoring reports on the implementation of local action plans for fight against corruption.

In accordance with its programme orientation and activity areas, Institute Alternative prepared a set of recommendations for improving legal and institutional framework, and practice in the area of public-private partnerships and concessions, public procurement, and employment at the local level.

Opening remarks and the conference keynote speeches were given by Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director of Centre for Civic Education (CCE), Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board of Institute Alternative (IA), Vesna Ratković, Director of the Anti-Corruption Directorate, H.E. Mitja Drobnič, Head of the EU Delegation to Montenegro, and H.E. Nils Ragnar Kamsvag, Ambassador of the Royal Norwegian Embassy.

In his speech, Stevo Muk underlined that corruption remains a widespread problem and a burning issue in the EU negotiation process. It is in fact the process of accession of Montenegro to the European Union that has raised the issue of necessity of making adjustments at the local level as a response to the challenges that will be brought by the full membership in the EU. Namely, a great part (about two thirds) of the EU Acquis, with which it is necessary to harmonize domestic legislation in its entirety, is implemented at the local level.

He reminded that there is a need for higher level of functional and fiscal decentralization, establishing a quality system of human resources development and management of human resources policy, as well as improving transparency of work of the local governments and allowing for greater participation of citizens and stakeholders in the conduct of public affairs, as stated in the Strategy of Public Administration Reform in Montenegro 2011-2016.

The first panel, dedicated to presenting regional experience and institutional approach, was moderated by Daliborka Uljarević, while the panelists were Čedomir Čupić, professor at the Faculties of Political Science in Belgrade and Podgorica, and Branislav Radulović, PhD, member of the Senate of the State Audit Institution.

The second panel provided an overview of the identified corruption risks in public procurement, public-private partnerships, and urban planning. It was moderated by the Research Coordinator at IA, Jovana Marović, who also presented recommendations for improvement of the current state of affairs in these areas. Panelists at the second panel were:

  • Aleksandar Damjanović, Head of the Parliamentary Committee for Economy, Finance and Budget,
  • Dragan Radonjić, Head of the Department for Fight against Economic Crime in the Police Administration,
  • Darko Brajušković, Mayor of the Municipality of Kolašin.

Recommendations for improvement in the field of work of the local parliaments, employment at the local level, and combating political corruption, were presented at the third panel. The moderator was Boris Marić, Senior Legal Advisor at Centre for Civic Education (CCE), while the panelists were Marija Ćatović, Mayor of the Municipality of Kotor, and Ljubomir Filipović, Deputy Mayor of the Municipality of Budva.

Posted on

Meeting with the MPs from the Security and Defence Committee

Representatives of Institute Alternative Mr. Stevo Muk, Ms. Dina Bajramspahić, Mr. Marko Sošić, and Ms. Milica Milonjić, had a meeting today with the members of the Parliamentary Security and Defence Committee in order to discus the findings and recommendations of IA’s new Monitoring Report on Implementation of the Law on Parliamentary Oversight of the Security and Defence Sector.

Eight members of the Committee were actively involved in the meeting, namely the chair of the Committee Mr. Mevludin Nuhodžić, as well as the members of the Committee Mr. Obrad Mišo Stanišić, Mr. Radivoje Nikčević, Ms. Snežana Jonica, Mr. Velizar Kaluđerović, Mr. Predrag Bulatović, Mr. Suljo Mustafić, and Mr. Luiđ Ljubo Škrelja. MPs discussed the problems we had identified in relation to implementation of the Law and the exercise of parliamentary oversight of the security and defense sector. Furthermore, MPs pointed out to the obstacles they face in their work.

The meeting was an opportunity to present the results of the Committee’s work in the previous year from our point of view, hear the opinions of the members of the Committee on these issues, and identify possibilities for improvement.

This is third year in a row that IA monitors the implementation of this Law, with the support of the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF).

The novelty of this year’s report is the assessment of systemic impact of implementation of this Law upon the state authorities in the security and defense sector which are subject to parliamentary oversight, as well as the analysis of views on the effects of supervision given by the representatives of nine aforementioned state authorities.

Traditionally and in accordance with the established methodology of monitoring reports, the first part refers to the monitoring of implementation of the Law in its third implementation year. For the purpose of presenting the activities of the Committee in 2013, IA researchers attended all Committee meetings which were open to the public.