Posted on

Enforce the Agreement

MPs have the right to convey their messages in various ways, opposition MPs in particular, even in unusual, unconventional ways.

However, the rest of the parliamentary performance last Friday was torturesome, violent, unnecessary, rude and inappropriate for our parliamentary life.

MPs from Democratic Front have contributed to this, two of them most significantly, but the Prime Minister as well, by responding them in a similar fashion.

Democratic Front has clearly acted in accordance with their plan (for the election campaign) to:

1. Present themselves as the only hard-line opposition

2. Prolong further the agony of the formation of a transitional government

3. Marginalize moderate opposition actors, which usually happens when the political debate is being radicalized.

Unfortunately, the events of this type are favorable for DPS and feed their position as alleged guardians of order. So does DF in their attempt to convince the public that direct and indirect violence is permitted and the ultimate method for taking over the power from DPS.

However, the Parliament must be functional, particularly at this moment where it has a crucial role in helping resolving the current political crisis, the election of the new government and at least partial and gradual return of trust in the electoral process.

Political streams in the country cannot be determined by the group that has less than 10% of support of the electoral body. Things have simply changed since the last elections, the number of parliamentarians does not correspond to the current power of political figures in the electoral body, and most of the citizens are reluctant in supporting radical solutions.

Actions that are necessary to be pursued:

1. speeding up the process of forming the new government; as well as pursuing other nominations, NSA general inspector at first, as well as filing other positions in the state and local administration without the obstructions of the government and DPS,

2. continuing regular parliamentary activities and adoption of pending laws, including media laws,

3. strengthening parliamentary supervision of the government and providing the opportunity for the opposition that does not make part of the transitional government to track this process,

4. continuing preparation of elections including strict controls and audits of the electoral list and affined database and registrar,

5. strengthening the organized work of the Police and the Prosecution in uncovering organized groups that have an impact on the citizens’ electoral will,

6. not obstructing the process of the European integration obligations in the Government or in the Parliament, which is demanded and expected by the European Commission, and it is, first of all, in the interest of Montenegro’s citizens.

Finally, representatives of the opposition in the transitional Government and in other functions in the public administration system must, if the public support is deemed needed, regularly, responsibly, in an organized manner and professionally inform the public on its work and results for their work.

The opposition parties must, if they want to oppose the ruling DPS in a more serious manner, make a final decision on possible coalitions prior to elections, make the decision public and start working on an electoral campaign that requires much more time than there is left until the election day.

Stevo MUK
President of the Managing Board

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

Posted on

Open data in the Law on FOI – Ministry of Culture to remedy deficiencies and ambiguities

Institute Alternative (IA) has prepared and submitted to the Ministry of Culture comments on Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information (FOI). Amendments to the Law on FOI introduced provisions that regulate reuse of public sector information and therefore are important for the whole Montenegrin community advocating openness of data held by state authorities.

First attempt to transpose the European Commission Directives governing this issue was a Draft Law on Free Use of Public Data, which we have criticised because of the large number of ambiguities and suggested to introduce these provisions into the existing Law on FOI, which now has been done.

However, despite the progress that has been made compared to the previous version of the document, the one that is now offered to the public hearing can also be significantly improved. Our key observations relate to broad and vaguely defined provisions that, among other things, regulate:

  • Conditions for reuse of information – introduction of a new degree of restriction of access to information and its use is vague;
  • Rejection of the request for reuse – two out of seven listed grounds for rejecting request are quite unreasonable and unjustified, thereby creating a significant space for groundless refusal of access;
  • Costs of procedure for reuse of information – general provisions referring this issue leave wide space for misuses;
  • Open Data Portal – this will probably remain only a good idea if the Law does not prescribe obligation for contracting authorities to submit data.

Although the existing provisions of the Law on FOI are not subject to this Draft Law, we offered some amendments related to general problems in the implementation of the Law on FOI, and that could also negatively affect reuse. Hence, the following issues must be solved:

  • vaguely defined deadline for acting of the authority upon the request for free access to information;
  • bad practice of publishing the decision approving access to information, and not the information itself;
  • legal loophole which allows authorities not to act upon the decisions of the Council of the Agency for Protection of Personal Data and the Free Access to Information on the appeal of the claimant;
  • capacities of the Agency for Protection of Personal Data and the Free Access to Information must be strengthened, in accordance with the existing, but in particular with the new competences that these amendments are introducing.

Here you can find IA Comments on Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information in entirety (only in Montenegrin).

IA Comments on Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information

Posted on

Rhetoric or reality? E-Government and the reconceptualisation of service delivery in Montenegro

In Montenegro, the citizens’ right to good administration is jeopardized due to overly complex administrative procedures and the lack of possibilities to use services in the most cost-effective manner – electronically.

Although the eGovernment portal was created in 2011 and the Law on Electronic Government was adopted in 2014, there are numerous problems in the implementation of the electronic systems of service delivery. Civil servants sometimes do not accept changes in the workflow and refuse to start using the electronic systems of service delivery while many public authorities are not interested in setting up services on the eGovernment portal. Additionally, weak coordination mechanisms result in authorities’ failure to respect prescribed deadlines under the Law on Electronic Government.

Whereas the budget for IT equipment and incentives for IT staff are meagre. Finally, e-services for businesses are more developed than those for citizens. The majority of e-services for citizens offer only general information and forms which can be downloaded while the digital certificate needed for completing electronic services requests is too costly for the Montenegrin living standard.

This policy brief has been prepared in the framework of the TRAIN Programme 2016 (Think Tanks Providing Research and Advice through Interaction and Networking), which is supported by the German Federal Foreign Office (Stability Pact for South East Europe) and implemented by the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP).

Posted on

Cooperation between the State Audit Institution and Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office in Montenegro

Cooperation between the State Audit Institution and Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office in Montenegro is not an example of imperative timely exchange of information and implementation of coordinated joint activities of the institutions. Constantly shifting of responsibility from one institution to another does not lead to the improvement of this cooperation.

The State Audit Institution has not filed any criminal charges or initiated any damages proceedings to date. Hence, the greatest burden of responsibility for the lack of impact of the work and findings of the audits falls on the SAI. However, the Prosecutor’s Office must not wait for information from official reports of state institutions, most often obtained from third parties, as has been the case so far, but must act on them regularly in accordance with its competences. Moreover, the excuse for passiveness of this institution cannot be that SAI does not file criminal charges, often publicly cited as a reason, especially taking into account that the largest number of charges is still filed by citizens. Over 80% of criminal charges filed with the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2015 was filed by citizens, natural and legal persons. Additionally, the SAI’s reports should serve as an indicator to numerous actors, as the starting point for their own controls and initiation of any criminal charges and other actions. Therefore, the findings of the SAI are both evidence and roadmap for further investigation.

A significant obstacle to better results of the SAI and Prosecutor’s Office are their capacities. Both Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office and Special Prosecutor’s Office are currently working with less than 50% capacity, and recruitment procedures are under way. The SAI, on the other hand, two years after having adopted the new Rulebook on internal organisation and job description, still has not filled the position of the Head of Department of legal affairs, criminal and misdemeanour charges and anti-corruption, and has only one employee in this department.

The public is not sufficiently informed about the activities of the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office concerning the findings of the SAI. The statement about the three cases established in the Prosecutor’s Office on the basis of the audit reports was a new moment. However, it is still not enough. A significant limitation in that sense is the lack of legal obligation of the Prosecutor’s Office to report on the submitted documents.

The experience of the countries in the region, as well as the countries of the European Union, offers a wide range of mechanisms and activities that can improve cooperation between the SAI and Prosecutor’s Office, whether special agreements and cooperation frameworks, or establishment of task forces, and regular instituting of misdemeanour and criminal proceedings.

Posted on

Press release: Security and Defense Committee violates the Law for five months

Security and Defence Committee has not adopted the Parliamentary Oversight Plan for 2016, which should have been done according to the Law on Parliamentary Oversight of Security and Defence Sector

The Committee competent for the control of the security sector was obliged to adopt the Annual Parliamentary Oversight Plan for 2016 by the end of last year. Only yesterday, on May 4th, the Committee announced its session for next week with adoption of the Plan on its agenda.

The Committee has not published the draft plan, and has thereby prevented interested parties to present their proposals for improvement of this document. Although there is no legal obligation to do so, in accordance with the principles of openness of the Parliament and its working bodies in drafting key documents, the draft plan should have been published in a reasonable time before the session. This would provide the civil sector, the academic community and other relevant stakeholders with an opportunity to give their views of the Plan, in order to make this document as better basis for effective parliamentary oversight as possible. The plan should provide the most diverse set of activities aiming to contribute to improvement of the functioning of the sector, as well as to encourage reforms and fundamental and timely fulfillment of obligations of the integration process.

The Parliamentary Oversight Plan is an obligation which sets annual work objectives, but it also serves as the baseline indicator for assessment of the Committee’s performance at the end of the year.

We remind that one of the aims of the special Law on Parliamentary Oversight of Security and Defence, adopted in late 2010, is to strengthen the control role of the Parliament and more effective oversight of security and defence sector having in mind the repressive character of the area.

We urge the members of the Committee to fulfill their obligations promptly and within the legal deadline. Also, we urge them to submit more initiatives for using control mechanisms envisaged by this law. Finally, we express our dissatisfaction with the fact that the Committee has not met since mid-December last year, having in mind the fact that this is the most important supervisory body of the Parliament which is expected to establish effective control over key levers of power in Montenegro.

Aleksandra VAVIĆ
Project Associate