There is an increased government crackdown on assembly in the Western Balkans, without consistent awareness, monitoring and mapping the issues. Organisations participating in the project have identified threats to the right to freedom of assembly, and found that there is a lack of understanding of the legal framework, international standards and its implementation.
The objective of our project is to design and pilot a research for monitoring the legal framework and practical implementation of the right to freedom of assembly in 5 countries (Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia). In order to increase understanding of how this freedom is applied and how it can be protected, project leader, European Centre for Non-profit Law (ECNL) has established a cooperation with research centers: Institute alternative, conducting the research in Montenegro, and research organisations: REACTOR in Macedonia, Civil Rights Defenders in Bosnia, Human Rights House in Croatia and YUCOM in Serbia.
Using the methodology specifically developed for this project, the research will be conducted in the first half of 2016, producing five country reports, as well as a short regional summary of all countries’ findings. ECNL and partners will develop recommendations for action and advocacy safeguarding right to free assembly, for both governments and EU/donors. We will end this pilot project with a regional expert conference to discuss the outcomes and come up with an action plan for regional and in-country advocacy.
The project is made possible by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law through the Civic Space Initiative, implemented in partnership with ARTICLE 19, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and the World Movement for Democracy.
States do not own a monopoly over information, therefore the role of civil society in the monitoring of public policies and achievement of strategic goals becomes even more important. Almost as a rule, transition countries lack official statistical data. Moreover, available data are usually incomplete; which makes evidence based policy making even more difficult, and also unreliable when it comes to officially presented data on the public policy implementation. Therefore, civil society should play its role as the corrective mechanism in relation to the relevant institutions at the national and regional level.
The process of implementation of the South East Europe 2020 Strategy, the regional strategy document, which was modeled on the reform agenda of the European Union (EU), Europe 2020, provides a framework for the greater involvement of civil society in the process of directing overall social and economic development of the region as well as institution-building process in countries that are still in the process of consolidating democracy. An area in which civil society organisations can provide special contribution is “Governance for Growth”, all-pervasive strategy pillar covering improvement of public services, fight against corruption and judicial reform. The mere fact that public officials are subjected to ever greater political conditioning by the EU, which can often lead to a risk to their personal careers and point out the corruption within institutions, is reflecting the importance of independent, external role of “watchdog” that civil society can take.
For the purposes of this publication, which aims to provide guidance to civil society organisations to engage in monitoring the “Governance for growth” pillar, monitoring is defined as systematic data collection towards gaining insight of the specific policy at a given time in relation to the targets and results. This definition reflects a paradigm shift when it comes to monitoring policy, i.e. from the former monitoring process, primarily focused on the implementation of certain policies, to the result-oriented monitoring, as an instrument that allows stakeholders and decision makers to monitor progress and impact of specific policies. As such, monitoring is a natural introduction to the evaluation of public policies, and assessment of the policy impact after a certain period of its implementation.
By ignoring requests, prohibiting attendance to all forthcoming sessions of the Council and not allowing participation in the session concerning documents for implementation of the Law on Financing Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns, the Agency for Prevention of Corruption continued the practice of concealing its activities from the public eye thus demonstrating that circumvention of the law and lack of transparency will continue to be regular patterns of its work.
The Agency for Prevention of Corruption prohibited the representative of Institute Alternative (IA) from attending this year’s sessions of the Council. Moreover, IA did not even receive written notice if our representative may or may not attend this year’s first session of the Council held on 15 January. Notwithstanding the request being duly submitted, the interested public was informed that the application procedure was amended only after this session ended. Following the newly established procedure, we filed another request asking to be allowed to attend the session to be held the following day.
Only at our insistence were we informed that according to the decision of this body, representatives of the non-governmental sector cannot attend the sessions, but only participate in the work of the Council. The aforementioned decision of the Council took effect from January 1, 2016. Their decision upon our request was not delivered to us in a written form, but only communicated orally. Deciding upon our new request for participation, the Council once again denied it on the grounds that “there are no reasons for the participation of representatives of non-governmental organizations” as the by-laws are finalized.
Prohibiting NGO representatives from attending the sessions and restricting cooperation modalities to occasional participation represents a step further towards complete intransparency of the Council, which began with the termination of the practice of making audio recordings of the Council sessions. In addition, by inventing criteria for participation of NGOs, the Council of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption undermines the rule of equality, thus preventing independent entities from carrying out an impartial evaluation of its work. This complements the Agency’s spectrum of non-transparent “rules” of operation to which we have indicated in the recently published analysis on its establishment.
Public authorities have made progress regarding protection of personal data, nevertheless the tendency towards misuse of the Law that regulates that area is still present. That misuse is mirrored in conceiving data on public officials, as noted by our public policy researcher, Dina Bajramspahić.
In the interview for PR Center regarding Data Protection Day, she stated that since the Law on Personal Data Protection has been adopted in 2008, progress was made, when it comes to following standards in this area.
’’Nevertheless, we should bear in mind that institutions are not the only one obliged to the Law, but also are business companies, legal entities and NGOs. Certain differences are being noticed here’’, Bajramspahić points out.
She estimated that progress has been made regarding protection of the personal data by the public authorities, through shading names and surnames and other personal data for identification of individuals.
”Through misuse of personal data protection principles, we have a certain tendency to cover info on public officials”, Bajramspahić warns.
She points out that many Montenegrin citizens are not familiar with their rights in personal data protection, especially regarding sensitive data which is protected by the system in accordance to the Law.
When it comes to public officials, Bajramspahić said that misuse of the Law is often in practice, pointing out to IA’s request for the biographies of state prosecutors, who applied for the Special prosecutor’s position.
’’We didn’t ask for that info because biographies of those people were interesting to us, but because we wanted to see the documentation based on which the Prosecutorial Council makes decisions. Nevertheless, we didn’t receive the info under the excuse of personal data protection of candidates. This is unacceptable because European Court for Human Rights points out that public officials whose payments are financed from the state budget should be less exposed to the sensitivity of data protection and should be more exposed to critics then common citizens’’, she points out.
‘’On the other hand’’, she added, ‘’there are public authorities that gather personal data to greater extent than it’s legally allowed. ‘’
’’It is necessary to improve surveillance in these cases and control data collecting’’, Bajramspahić says.
When answering our question on the rights that are being violated, regarding personal data protection, Bajramspahić said that the most common example concerning citizens refers to unauthorized data publishing.
’’Citizens have the right to know that their personal data cannot be published without their knowledge. This practice repeats when it comes to media, business companies, and advertising. Additionally, citizen can get insight in data from anyone who collects info on him/her’’, she said.
Institutions dealing with security have special authorities regarding data collecting without citizens’ knowledge and via secret methods, as Bajramspahić pointed out.
‘’This refers especially to those institutions obliged to control data collecting on citizens by two entities, Police administration and National Security Agency. Here we lack in sufficient surveillance of that which these two public entities collect.’’
The most active institution in this area has been Agency for Protection of Personal Data, which has made significant progress since the adoption of the Law. Neverthess, ’’there is still enough room for improvement.’’
’’Government and responsible entities, primarily Agency for Protection of Personal Data must contribute to the greater citizens’ knowledge of their own rights and their practice, which is the only way to discipline institutions, business companies and legal entities in practicing the Law in right manner’’, Bajramspahić said.
Bajramspahić referred that citizens should report abuse of the rights regarding personal data protection to the Agency.
’’Agency is authorized to receive complaints of the citizens and it is obliged to submit its decision on (non)spotted irregularities in timeframe of 60 days as well as to determine the measures for resolving spotted irregularities. In case its decisions are being disrespected, high fines are determined’’, she explains.
While addressing all the challenges awaiting Montenegro, Bajramspahić pointed out that implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection will be in the EU eyesight, in the time of the accession.
„This way, responsible authorities and citizens will know more regarding the Law’’, she concluded.
Parts of the interview with public policy researcher in IA, Dina Bajramspahić, can be found below:
Parliament adopted the budget for 2016 while the MPs have tried to add six new projects to the capital budget, through specific conclusions. We assume that nothing will happen with these six projects because of the systematic problem in development and presentation of the capital budget, which disables Parliament to obligate the Government in this matter.
During budget adoption for 2016, MPs have stopped long and senseless practice in submitting amendments to the Law on budget justification, in order to change capital budget. Even though the amendment had been adopted, it hasn’t created the change regarding the Law, or any new obligation for the Government.
Instead of the amendments, Parliament unanimously adopted conclusions with the Law on budget, regarding agreed capital budget changes, adding six new projects this year. This practice is not new – in previous years, MPs tended to adopt conclusions on Law on budget, in order to pressure Government to implement certain capital projects. Conclusions would not had been implemented, and the Government would not had given the reasons why the certain conclusion, even though supported by the majority of MPs, had been disregarded.
Currently, the capital budget, as the most important part of the national budget for the citizens, is at the same time the least transparent.
Annual Law on budget does not contain list of the capital projects (which is only part of the justification). All projects are summarized through the budgets of the Directorate of Traffic and Directorate of Public Works and divided to general categories, such as local infrastructure expenditure, construction expenditure etc. Therefore, MPs assured bigger budget for a certain position within these two chapters, which doesn’t mean that this very purpose will be fulfilled, i.e. that submitted capital budget is going to be implemented.
MPs have decided on the capital budget for 2016 – including more than 300 million € for over 100 projects, justified on ten pages – without previous insight in the spatial plan and other documentation. Parliament has put itself before fait accompli, by delivering the capital budget within the overall law proposal on budget. Therefore, it is more correct to say that Parliament only concludes the capital budget, rather than considering it or adopting it.
Significant leap forward would be to include the Parliament in the establishment of the capital budget, which is the most sensible period to contribute to its content. In order to change the existing situation, legal procedure should be amended, therefore enabling main parliamentary committee to gain better insight into the capital budget draft, to give its opinions and suggestions, which the Government should take into consideration during implementing those suggestions.
In short: if the Parliament wants to create key impact on the most important component of the annual budget, than it must undertake the task and create that possibility for itself, through changes of the systematic Law on budget and fiscal responsibility. All the other attempts, conclusions, changes in justifications and suggestions obligate no one else but MPs to recognize the lack of their execution.
The president of the Managing board of the Institute Alternative (IA), Stevo Muk, said in an interview for daily “Dan” that the anti-corruption institutions are unprepared for the election year. He also pointed out that the violations of the law marked the establishment of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption.
The beginning of implementation of new set of anti-corruption laws and the establishment of new institutions that should contribute to a more efficient fight against corruption have marked previous year. Special Prosecutor’s Office started operating in July last year and on 1st January this year, the Agency for Prevention of Corruption has announced that its establishment represents ” a beginning of a new stage in the overall efforts of Montenegro in combating corruption”.
Institute alternative is closely monitoring work of this newly established institution, and within the project “Governance for Montenegro’s Growth: It depends on us!”, financially supported by Regional Cooperation Council, seeks to improve the implementation of the Strategy „South East Europe 2020“ in terms of good governance and fight against corruption in Montenegro.
Agency for Prevention of Corruption started to work on 1st January. IA has repeatedly pointed to omissions in the establishment of this institution. How do you think it may affect the beginning of its work?
– The establishment of the Agency so far has been marked by an obvious violation of the law. The public was deprived of important information that were considered recommendation and precondition for the appointment of director and members of the Agency’s Council. The budget of the Agency has been determined without previously adopted Rulebook on internal organisation and systematisation. Vacancies for new jobs were announced in late December, which means that the recruitment process will probably “stretch” into 2016, and thus „postpone“ the results of the Agency’s work for a while.
The delay in fulfilling formal conditions for beginning of work of this institution, blocking the appointment of another candidate for member of the Agency’s Council from the NGO sector, the appointment of one member with violation of the Law on State Audit Institution, the appointment of director connected to the top of Democratic Party of Socialists, cast a shadow on the ability of the institution to seriously tackle the many challenges under its competence, such as conflicts of interest or control of the financing of political parties and election campaigns, especially in forthcoming election year.
The establishment of the anti-corruption institutional framework is one of the priorities for Montenegro within implementation of the Strategy „South East Europe 2020“. What does a successful fight against corruption mean in the context of this Strategy?
– „South East Europe 2020“ is a strategic document which provides useful guidelines for combating corruption in Western Balkans, in particular because it highlights measures that, in addition to being aimed at reducing corruption, also seek to promote economic growth through creation of business-friendly environment. Therefore, the priority on which this strategy puts emphasis, in addition to improving the anti-corruption institutional and legislative framework, entails also competitive and transparent public procurement. However, the public procurement system in Montenegro abounds in problems ranging from a lack of transparency, weak control, lack of political accountability and misdemeanor and criminal liability for frequent abuses.
According to the Balkan Barometer, survey conducted last year within the Regional Cooperation Council, 65 % of respondents consider that the fight against corruption in Montenegro is not efficient enough. What do you think that the institution should do in order to make this process more efficient?
– For achieving long-awaited results in the fight against corruption it is not only necessary to strengthen the anti-corruption institutional framework, but also to enhance proactivity of those institutions on all levels. Having that in mind, the cooperation between Police, State prosecutor’s office, newly-established Agency, State Audit Institution and other institutions is extremely important. As you already know, we are still waiting the appointment of the Head of Special Police Unit, who should further enhance this cooperation. Networking, mutual trust and timely exchange of information between aforementioned institutions are crucial for ensuring measurable results, as well as the recommendation for actors on the regional level through Strategy “South East Europe 2020”.
Abuses of Law and Frauds
According to the Strategy “South East Europe 2020”, competitive and transparent public procurement procedures are one of the key priorities for creating the business-friendly environment. However, findings of research conducted for IA has showed that more than 60% of citizens think that the abuses of law and frauds are happening frequently when it comes to the public procurement procedures.
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
There is an increased government crackdown on assembly in the Western Balkans, without consistent awareness, monitoring and mapping the issues. Organisations participating in the project have identified threats to the right to freedom of assembly, and found that there is a lack of understanding of the legal framework, international standards and its implementation.
Public authorities have made progress regarding protection of personal data, nevertheless the tendency towards misuse of the Law that regulates that area is still present. That misuse is mirrored in conceiving data on public officials, as noted by our public policy researcher, Dina Bajramspahić.
budget for the citizens, is at the same time the least transparent.
