Posted on

Parliamentary Questions in Montenegro

Questions to the PM and the ministers are a significant instrument of parliamentary control and an important channel for informing the public about the most relevant topics for the whole of society. An added benefit of the control mechanism of asking questions of the executive branch is that it is being broadcast live on TV and on the Parliament’s YouTube channel, allowing MPs to attract the broader public’s attention to important topics.

Owing to the fact that the questions are published at the Parliament’s website, it is possible to analyse which areas of control the MPs/political parties are interested in and to what extent, to what degree the MPs deal with citizens’ problems and interests, as well as whether the questions are used solely for political promotion of the MPs and parties. The MPs communicate directly with the executive, and they ‘test’ the ability of the state authorities to respond with good arguments and facts to the questions they are being asked.

The impact analysis of the parliamentary questions and the Premier’s Hour as control mechanisms available to MPs was conducted on the basis of a detailed overview of all the questions publicly available for 2013 and 2014 and the ministries’ responses.

The qualitative assessment of the impact of the control mechanisms in practice was done through conducting in-depth interviews with eight MPs in December 2014, the Secretary General of the Parliament, and the Secretaries at the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior. In choosing our interlocutors we ensured the representation of all MPs’ clubs as well as gender balance, and we took into consideration the previous practices in using this mechanism by the MPs.

Posted on

How to Make Parliamentary Inquiries Successful? – A look at the Audio Recordings Affair Parliamentary Inquiry two years on

During the last decade of parliamentarism, or more precisely since 2002, two parliamentary inquiries have taken place in Montenegro: on the Telekom Affair in 2012 and on the Audio Recordings Affair in 2013. However, they have not fully met the expectations, as they failed to meet their primary objective – ascertaining the facts on what had happened. In both cases, the two parliamentary sides (the parliamentary majority and the opposition) remained at their initial positions and claims. This means that the members of the Inquiry Committee were unable to reach minimal agreement on the issues, which resulted in both inquiries adopting just technical reports. For this reason, the public had received no objective information from the inquiries on the affairs that have caused great uproar.

On 31 March 2013, the Parliament of Montenegro passed a Decision on establishing the Inquiry Committee for gathering information and facts about the “indications that members of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) may have at their party sessions planned, developed, and agreed on activities in electoral processes causing suspicion that they have misused state institutions, administration bodies, agencies, public companies, the budget and public funds, IPA funds, and EIB funds.” The inquiry was initiated by the parliamentary opposition following encouragement by EU officials’ statements, including the European Commission’s Enlargement Commissioner.

This inquiry has confirmed some of the implementation problems faced by the previous inquiry, and has also highlighted some new problems. Bearing in mind that parliamentary oversight of the work of the Government, state organs, and institutions is of great importance for improving their work’s legality and accountability, the Institute Alternative (IA) has prepared this analysis with the support of the Open Society Foundation (TTF), as a continuation of our long-standing interest in the Parliament’s control mechanisms.

The topic’s timeliness:

The issue of improving the implementation of parliamentary inquiries was reopened additionally in April 2015 by the Parliamentary Committee on Stabilisation and Association (POSP), which has stated the following in its Declaration and Recommendations to the Stabilisation and Association Council and institutions in Montenegro and the European Union: “Encourages parliamentary stakeholders to improve the Law on Parliamentary Inquiry.”

To be able to give an objective overview of the Inquiry Committee’s work, IA researchers have directly monitored the Committee’s work by attending the sessions open to the public. The aim of our research was to make a contribution towards more successful future parliamentary inquiries, and consequently better work of state authorities. We researched and analysed the obstacles faced by the Inquiry Committee on the Audio Recordings Affair in collecting data, the circumstances that have affected its work in a negative way, missed opportunities for a better approach, and opportunities for the Parliament to improve this control mechanism.

Posted on

Joint Press Release: Deadlines cannot be prioritized over the quality of Law

In relation to the adoption of Proposal of Law on the prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities on the session of Government of Montenegro from 4 June 2015 and the submission of this document to Parliament of Montenegro for its adoption, based on shortened procedure, due to the respect of deadlines envisaged within the Working Program of Government and action plans for Chapters 23 and 19, Association of Youth with Disabilities of Montenegro (AYDM), in cooperation with 63 organizations, addressed the President of Government Milo Đukanović, minister for human and minority rights Suad Numanović, Parliament of Montenegro, Ombudsman, representatives of European Commission and European Parliament as well as EU Delegation to Podgorica.

Following our initiatives, the Committee on Human Rights and Freedom has initiated putting the Draft Law back to the agenda for the additional harmonization between competent ministry and the organization of persons with disabilities, for one week period.

Namely, the Association of Youth with Disabilities of Montenegro, as an organization which had a member in the Working group for drafting initial text of Draft of Law, absolutely supported the adoption of New Law on the prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities. However, the Proposal of Law which Government adopted on session held on 4 June 2015, to a great extent, envisaged poorer solutions compared to ones envisaged by the Draft of Law which was on the public debate in August and September of 2014.

Numerous provisions consisted in the proposed text of the Law are problematic, and not only that they are not in line with the international and European standards regarding the area of protection of persons with disabilities, but they are even in contradiction with the proposed norm in Article 5, paragraph 1 of this Proposal, which states: “State bodies, state administration bodies, local self-government bodies, public companies and other legal and natural persons, within their competencies and authorities, are obliged to adopt, or to introduce and conduct regulations and special measures, focused on the creation of conditions for the realization of equality and protection of persons with disabilities, who are in an unequal position based on any ground compared to other persons.”

Upon the review of the comments and suggestions from public discussion by Working group, Ministry of human and minority rights failed to publish the Report from public debate on its internet page, thereby it did not inform interested parties to what extent it has acknowledged their suggestions. Additionally, it is particularly important to stress that the text of the Proposal of Law was not submitted to be reviewed by the members of the Council for care of persons with disabilities, sole body which deals exclusively with issues of persons with disabilities on national level, nor has this body had the opportunity to familiarize itself with the proposed text of the Law. Also, Ministry of human and minority rights most drastically violated the obligations and duties when it failed to inform the members of Working group on the process and changes which took place, after the Draft of the Law was submitted to be reviewed by European Commission (EU Delegation to Montenegro) and Secretariat for legislation.

Based on the information we gathered, key differences between the Draft and Proposal of Law took place when the same was submitted to ministries to be reviewed even though it was not clear why those ministries had representatives in Working group if those representatives were not competent to propose the norms before the Working group, and not to change the version of Draft after it was determined by the Working group. It remains unclear whether the European Commission had an insight in the last version of the text of Law before its submission to Government when it was expected from its representatives to provide their assessment of the harmonization.

Such ignorant relation towards the members of the Working group, particularly to those who provided the most of the contribution in the creation of the text of Law was completed with the submission of text to Government to be determined.

Such behavior is irresponsible to MPs as well, who won’t have enough time to analyze the law, thus placing themselves into an unfavorable position and suffer criticism by the public due to “frivolity” during the analysis and finally the harmonization and adoption of final text of the Proposal of Law.

We believe that the reason that stems from deadlines, defined with Action plan for the Chapter 19 – Social policy and employment and Action plan for Chapter 23 – Judiciary and fundamental rights, cannot be more important than the adoption of a quality law, law that would in fact guarantee the respect of rights of persons with disabilities in all areas of life regulated by the UN Convention on rights of persons with disabilities.

There is no good reason why this Law should be adopted in an inaccessible Parliament, which continues to discriminate great number of persons with disabilities and once more without the participation of those same persons in debates.

Should this regulation be adopted in its proposed form, even if it is amended to some extent in the parliamentary procedure, such state would lead to the initiation of new procedures for the protection from discrimination based on the mechanisms of protection from discrimination guaranteed to persons with disabilities with other regulation, due to its pointlessness and revolt caused by dissatisfaction.

Based on the abovementioned, we urged competent authorities, primarily the minister for human and minority rights to withdraw the Proposal of Law, so that it could be reviewed once again with the consultation of organizations of persons with disabilities and thus to improve the text, which could be adopted with delayed implementation if necessary, but for the good of those which rights it regulates, which should be its primary purpose.

The list of the organizations which have supported the initiative can be found here.

Posted on

Joint Press Release: Government dismissed OGP Operational Team

On yesterday’s session, Government of Montenegro de facto dismissed current Operational team of Open Government Partnership (OGP), by passing a new Decision on the formation of Operational team of Open Government Partnership, which it envisages the election of new members within 30 days from the day when the Decision comes into force.

Members of this working body from civil society were not previously informed that their term would suddenly be terminated as well as that NGO representatives will be re-elected based on public call. Controversial decision of Government was never reviewed on sessions of Operational team, and even after several inquiries submitted to coordinator of Operational team, we were deprived of the information who made this decision and suggested it to Government for its adoption, or who made the decision to dismiss current Operational team.

The only information that members of Operational team from civil sector received, as an inarticulate explanation, was that this decision had to be made in order to secure full legal assumptions for the unobstructed work of Operational team, and that the Government’s intention, supposedly, was not to dismiss members from civil sector.

Members of the Centre for Civic Education (CCE), the Centre for Democratic Transition (CDT), the Institute Alternative (IA) and the Network for the affirmation of non-governmental sector (MANS) worked in this working group voluntarily during last six months on the creation of Action plan for the improvement of state in the area of improvement of public services, increase of public integrity, efficient management of public resources etc, thereby advocating serious measures that would significantly change the functioning of state administration and proposed dozens of measures based on which current working version of Action plan of Open Government Partnership was made.

After the first version of Action plan was completed, and first public consultations conducted, Government “deposited” our work for another month, until the finalisation of Action plan. In this, highly inappropriate manner, Government secured that someone does the job, or that civil sector proposes the measures for new Action plan, and then excluded us from the work of Operational team just before the adoption of Action plan. In that manner, we will not be able to influence the final content of Action plan, which would leave room for Government to remove most problematic measures from the aspect of political will, but officially claim how the Action plan was made in cooperation with civil sector. Not only that Government prevented us in this manner from influencing the final outcome and content of Action plan for Open Government Partnership, it also ensured that we could not follow the implementation of that Action plan through Operative team.

OGP is a prestigious global initiative where 64 states participate, in which the cooperation between the Government and civil sector is mandatory when it comes to preparation of plan of reforms based on which the transparency and responsibility in the work of state administration is improved.

Boris MARIĆ, Centre for Civic Education (CCE)
Milica KOVAČEVIĆ, Centre for Democratic Transition (CDT)
Dina BAJRAMSPAHIĆ, Institute Alternative (IA)
Vuk MARAŠ, Network for the affirmation of non-governmental sector (MANS)

Posted on

Strengthening Consumer Protection Organisations for better Municipal Services in SEE

logoWorkshop on fundraising and project management financed from EU funds, within the project “Strengthening consumer protection organizations for better Municipal services in South Eastern Europe” organized by the Institute alternative (IA) and TEN network, of which IA is a member, was held in Budva between 7th and 11th June.

 

The project is financially supported by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation-GIZ.

The workshop was organized with the aim of strengthening capacity of consumer organizations in the area of consumer rights and local services. Participants were representatives of research centers which are also member of TEN (Think for Europe) network: IA from Podgorica, the Center for European Policy-CEP from Serbia and the Institute for European policy- EPI from Macedonia.

Jačanje kapaciteta potrošačkih organizacija za bolje lokalne usluge u Jugoistočnoj Evropi

Beside the TEN network members, this training was attended by the representatives of partner consumer organizations: Center for the protection of consumers – CEZAP from Montenegro, NOPS- National Consumers Organization of Serbia, and OPM-Organization of consumers of Macedonia.

During the four-day work, participants have the opportunity to acquire new knowledge in the area of proposal writing projects financed from EU funds, as well as in the field of project management. Sessions were dedicated to make participants familiar with the phases in project cycle while the participants have been working on specific project proposals during the work in groups.

Knowledge and experience gained at the workshop should be to strengthen consumer organizations in Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro, in the forthcoming process of dealing with fundraising and as well as with writing projects in work of CONWeb – network of consumer protection organizations, whose establishment is also foreseen in this project.

Jačanje kapaciteta potrošačkih organizacija za bolje lokalne usluge u Jugoistočnoj Evropi

Posted on

Joint Press Release: What has Prosecution done with SAI’s reports?

The appeal of the five NGO’s to the State Prosecutor’s Office to inform the public about the actions that have been undertaken regarding the reports that the SAI has officially submitted to the State Prosecutor’s Office

In eight cases, The State Audit Institution (SAI) has submitted particularly worrying audit reports to the State Prosecutor’s Office. Today we have submitted an initiative to the Supreme State Prosecutor to inform the public about the actions undertaken in relation to these reports, but also about other SAI’s reports that are publicly available.

We demand that the public must be informed about:

  • how many binding orders for checks have been referred to the Police related to the allegations in the reports, how many notifications have been collected and submitted to the prosecutors;
  • how many persons have been interrogated;
  • how many orders on the conduct of investigation, indictments proposals or indictments have been issued, based on the collected data;
  • Out of eight reports submitted, how many of them have been “dismissed” because the investigation showed that there is no criminal offence in the documented violations of the law?

The eight submitted reports were the audit reports on the Institute of Textbooks and Teaching Aids, Center for Contemporary Arts, Center for Vocational Education, Radio and Television of Montenegro (public service), University of Montenegro, Montenegrin National Theater, Democratic Party and the audit report on state guarantees. These audited entities have mainly received the adverse opinion of the SAI and demonstrated some of the worst images of how spending units are spending the money of the taxpayers. Each of the eight reports contains alarming data about enormous amounts irregularly presented in the financial statements, budget overspending, misuse of budget funds, concluding illegal and harmful contracts, illegal actions, omissions in public procurement procedures, etc. Among the SAI reports delivered to the State Prosecutor’s Office is also the Audit Report on State Guarantees which contains evidence that the actions of the state authorities and individuals have jeopardised the public interest and the stability of the budget.

After completing the audit and publishing the final audit report, the SAI has been delivering these reports to the prosecution in order to determine the possible existence of the criminal offence. Considering the repeatedly proclaimed cautious policy of the SAI towards this matter, formal submission of the reports to the State Prosecutor’s Office could be regarded as a de facto criminal charge. The act of submission of reports to the State Prosecutor’s Office shows that there is awareness that situation observed in these state authorities is in the zone of criminal responsibility.

Even though some of these reports are more than five years old, we still do not know what the State Prosecutor’s Office has done with them. Even the state auditors have no information about the prosecution’s follow up, because they are not obligated to inform them.

Therefore, wanting to encourage accountability for such a conduct with public funds, we urge the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office to inform the public about the actions it took in order to investigate the existence of the criminal offence in these cases highlighted by SAI.

Also, we call upon the Supreme State Prosecutor to determine the eventual responsibility of the state prosecutors who ignored these reports. Any negative opinion of the SAI should serve as a signal for the prosecution to proactively investigate possible abuses and criminal offences. Every failure to act when the SAI report is formally submitted, may suggest that there is lack of expertise, lack of interest or lack of will on the part of the competent prosecutors to determine responsibility for the committed criminal offences.

Stevo MUK, President of the Managing Board of IA

Tea GORJANC-PRELEVIĆ, Executive director of the Human Rights Action

Daliborka ULJAREVIĆ, Executive director of the Centre for Civic Education

Ana NOVAKOVIĆ, Executive director of the Center for Development of NGOs

Zlatko VUJOVIĆ, President of the Managing Board of the Centre for Monitoring and Research