Workshop 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.
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.
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
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
The Government Working Group for preparation of amendments on Criminal Code Procedure was formed in March 2013 and it is justified that they were working for so long on this the most important legal document in the field of criminal justice. The Government submitted the Proposal Law to the Parliament on 11 May this year and imposed expectations to be adopted in shortened procedure, due to the respect of deadlines envisaged within the Chapter 23.
Since there is no more significant legal instrument for the fight against criminal, especially corruption and organised crime, a daily topical theme, we have referred an initiative to the Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration to organise a public hearing with all interested parties. The public hearing was attended by over twenty persons, representatives of Working group, competent state authorities, academic community, NGO representatives and MPs of the Committee. This control hearing represents an example for other committees how to organise an expert discussion with different and conflicting attitudes, devoid of political views, all with the aim to improve the law. It turned out that there are number of controversial issues, mostly related to the dilemma whether the balance between the necessary efficiency of investigations and respect for human rights was established.
We have also referred a criticism to the proposer of the law due to a conclusion that “the existing concept of criminal procedure should not be changed”, without giving any argument or explanation. It raises the question on the basis of which parameters they came to that conclusion and why all the problems in cooperation between the police and the prosecution, disorientation of the prosecutors with their new role, an evident lack of results it the field of corruption and organised crime and a reduced number of charges were completely ignored.
We consider that this concept should be boldly questioned, not necessarily in order to be changed, but to thoroughly take into account all the Montenegrin specifics, due to which this normally successful concept in most European countries, has not yet started to work in our country.
Regarding that, a tendency to increase the powers of the state prosecutors and thus strengthen their role of head of investigation, to the detriment of the powers of investigative judges is particularly noticeable in the Law Proposal. While this may be a natural next step in the future, former practice has shown that state prosecutors are not yet sufficiently prepared to fulfill obligations prescribed under their competence by the applicable laws.
Bearing in mind problems in cooperation between the Police Administration and The Prosecutor’s Office, the Institute alternative has suggested on the public hearing, among other things, that the most important provisions of the Agreement on joint work of the State Prosecution and the Ministry of Interior – Police Administration during the preliminary investigation and criminal proceedings should be incorporated in the Criminal Code Procedure. The European Commission has recognised the justification of our request, which is explicitly stated on the 42nd page of the Progress Report on Montenegro, adopted by the European Commission, but the Government refuses to do so. Even though the provisions of the Agreement are mostly technical and the law matter, the negative practice has shown that there is a need for detailed regulation of the steps, accountability and obligations of both sides and for resolving contentious issues by the Law. It is ironic for the state authorities to sign an Agreement on joint work which is already imposed by the Law, but it is even more ironic not to cooperate for five years and for it to be admitted by the Government’s senior officials.
When it comes to secret surveillance measures (SSM), IA in principle is not against expanding the possibilities of SSM, because we believe that the aim is preventing the most serious offenses, but we are obligated to point out that the state authorities have not made an effort to bring more accountability and transparency into this area.
So we called the MPs not to vote for the adoption of the Law Proposal until the police, prosecution and the courts publicly announce detailed results of the application of the SSM since the adoption of the CPC in 2010 – which they refused to do in previous years. We have also requested to determine the officials responsible for numerous exclusions of the evidence obtained by the SSM from the court records, because the provisions of the CCP were violated.
Additionally, we have a dilemma about the extension of the period of SSM from “a maximum of 7 months” to “no longer than 18 months”, due to the lack of capacity of the Police Administration to apply simultaneously as many measures as requested. The European Commission’s expert, Mauricio Varaneze, in his Report from 2013 states that the Department for Special Checks has declined 50% of the requests of the Department for Combating Narcotics, because they have been applying measures for the cases of other police departments. Implementation of measures in accordance with the new law would further reduce possibilities for initiating more cases, so this solution should be considered in terms of efficiency.
Given the particular sensitivity of criminal charges for criminal offenses of corruption, we believe that it is necessary to introduce the control of dismissals of these criminal charges by an external, independent body, i.e. court, and not directly High State Prosecutor’s Office. Since persons who report these crimes are exposing themselves to the possible serious repercussions, it is necessary to double check their criminal charges.
Also, it would be important to create a system for the control of dismissal of anonymous criminal charges, because in that case, there is no one to file a complaint.
These and many other comments we have submitted to the MPs, and during the public hearing all the participants, governmental and non-governmental, have recognised the possibilities for improving this Law, which the MPs should turn into amendments.
Dina Bajramspahić
Public Policy Researcher
Text originally published in the ,,Forum” of daily Vijesti
Poor process coordination, delay in reporting and fulfillment of the measures outlined in the strategic documents, including the persistent disposal of rationalization of the number of employees, continue to be the most urgent issues in public administration reform in Montenegro.
At the end of May, The Council for Improvement of Business Environment, Regulatory and Structural Reforms has adopted the reports on the implementation of the Public Administration Reform Strategy and the Public Sector Internal Reorganisation Plan for last year, but the Government still has not adopted these reports, even though the deadline envisaged by the Action Plan for Chapter 23 was 23 of March 2015. In that way, the practice of poor reporting on public administration reform continuous, since the half of the implementation process of this still valid strategy was marked by the absence of any information on the realisation of the activities.
The degree of implementation of the measures from the Strategy and the Public Sector Internal Reorganisation Plan is also not commendable. The Institute alternative, in the absence of the official statistics, has received the data from the local government units on the basis of the request for free access to information, according to which the municipalities have not fulfilled any of the obligations stipulated in the Reorganisation Plan. As a reminder, all public authorities were supposed to prepare analysis of the optimal number of employees and the plan for staff reduction by the end of 2014.
Considering that the Council for improvement of business environment has adopted the aforementioned reports during the electronic session, it leads to the conclusion that this political body for the reform of public administration does not “recognize” the problems in implementing the key strategic documents that should be discussed, nor the necessity of putting a pressure in order to overcome these problems. During the last week, this body has only acquainted with the activities of the reform at the local, but not at the state level, without the concrete guidelines for improvement. Therefore, it is important to reassess the role of the Council in this process and to improve the inter – institutional coordination of the reform which has been unclear, interlaced, divided between two ministries and three coordination bodies for a long time. Additionally, the persistent refusal of the Government to include the civil society representatives in the process of developing strategic documents and coordinating bodies which are monitoring their implementation is noticeable, which additionally contributes to the lack of transparency.
Considering the fact that a new strategic document for the public administration reform for 2016 – 2020 is currently being developed, once again we emphasize the need for more precise, more regular and qualitatively improved presentation of the reform to the public, and the inclusion of the civil society representatives in working group for developing a new strategy and the team that will monitor the implementation of the Strategy.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Workshop 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 Government Working Group for preparation of amendments on Criminal Code Procedure was formed in March 2013 and it is justified that they were working for so long on this the most important legal document in the field of criminal justice. The Government submitted the Proposal Law to the Parliament on 11 May this year and imposed expectations to be adopted in shortened procedure, due to the respect of deadlines envisaged within the Chapter 23.
