The Ministry of Interior, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Science, Sustainable Development and Tourism and Public Administration do not plan to allocate funds for projects of non-governmental organisations that could assist them in the implementation of public policies.
These ministries did not identify priority areas of public interest and the necessary funds for financing projects and programs of non-governmental organisations, from the state budget for 2018. This indicated that next year they do not plan project cooperation with the non-governmental sector in the significant areas of public interest.
Institute Alternative specifically calls upon the Ministry of Public Administration, as the competent Ministry for the consistent implementation of the Law on NGOs, but also other ministries, to urgently start preparing sector analysis in accordance with the Article 32 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations.
The Ministry of Public Administration was obliged to draft proposals of priority areas of public interest and necessary funds for financing, based on established strategic and planning documents and after consultations with interested NGOs, operating in the relevant area of public interest.
We emphasise that public administration reform in Montenegro is a priority area for the European Commission. Given the total cost of the public administration reform, which is planned to be at least EUR 15 million, the need for the civil sector to provide a contribution in monitoring the benefits this reform will have for the citizens, through independent research and activities, is specifically emphasised.
We remind the public that the Law on NGOs prescribes financial support in the amount of at least 0.3% of the current annual budget for projects implemented by non-governmental organisations.
According to our knowledge, ministries that have issued a public call or conducted consultations with the non-governmental sector in determining priority areas are: Ministry of European Affairs, Justice, Human and Minority Rights, Defence, Agriculture, Health, Labour and Social Welfare, Education, Culture, Sports and Economics.
It is particularly worrying that the Ministry of Public Administration, which is also the ministry that prepared the proposal of the applicable Law and in charge of its efficient implementation, is one of the first to disregard its legal provisions.
Considering that the deadline for submitting proposals for project financing has long ago expired, the Institute alternative appeals to the state authorities that have not yet determined the necessary funds for financing of NGO projects, to urgently do so, thus enabling full implementation of legal provisions and obligation of the state to provide funds for financing projects and programs in areas of public interest.
Accountability at all levels is a key concept for establishing good governance practices in the public administration of Montenegro, as concluded at the panel discussion on the priorities of public administration reform
“The end goal of the public administration reform is to make citizens’ life easier, and this is something we all need to keep in mind” said Eleonora Formagnana, Program Manager at the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro, opening the round table “Priorities of the Public Administration Reform”.
Panel discussion on the priorities of the public administration reform was organized by the Institute Alternative and the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro in the EU Info Center.
Milena Milošević, public policy researcher at the Institute Alternative, reminded that the Institute last June published a report on the implementation of this reform, within the project “Civil Society for Good Governance: To Act and Account!”, supported by the European Union.
“What is particularly visible in our research is the lack of accountability and mechanisms that aim to improve it. It suffices to visit the Ombudsman website and look at the latest citizens’ remarks on the work of the administration. For example, a citizen is not able to dispose of his property since 2003, i.e. for 14 years, because the Property Administration is delaying the procedure“, stated Milošević.
Milošević praised the operational conclusions of the Special Working Group on Public Administration Reform, consisting of representatives of the European Commission and our Government, which refer to the area of accountability. “Given that we were among the first to initiate the discussion on potential ways of improving cooperation between the State Audit Institution (SAI) and the Prosecutor’s Office and to call on the SAI to be more proactive, we find it particularly commendable that in the future more attention will be given to this inter-institutional cooperation and that the measures taken on the basis of cases brought by the SAI to the Prosecutor’s Office will be monitored.”
Danijela Nedeljković – Vukčević, Director General in the Ministry of Public Administration (MPA), said that the public administration and civil society often see results differently, which is also natural. “However, the operational conclusions of the Special Group, which are published on the MPA website for the first time, are one of the indicators of openness and readiness of the administration to work on the reforms seriously and transparently.”
“We need to work on raising awareness of the managers about how accountable they are in their work. Also, attention is focused on updating the Central Personnel Register, without which there is no quality human resources management. We are currently working on creating conditions for linking this database with the Ministry of Finance one on earnings, which is a prerequisite for effective monitoring of the number of employees and the realization of the optimization process”
Ana Krsmanović, General Director of the Ministry of Finance, said that civil society organizations must be controllers, and that pointing out the problems from the exterior sources will always be useful.
Photo: EUIC/U.Jovovic
“Changes do not happen overnight, but I think we can increasingly see progress in the quality of administration. We do not have to have tectonic changes to improve the situation”, Krsmanovic said, noting that the introduction of new practices in work contributes to greater accountability and better services.
“When our name is on the paper we are signing, we will do more to fulfil the tasks, especially if there is a sanction for (non)execution of the task” said Krsmanovic, stating that the concept of managerial responsibility will lead to better quality of the administration.
Ana Perović – Vojinović, Administrative court judge, said that the new Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Administrative Dispute introduce new legal remedies. “In the context of public administration reform and the aspiration to shorten the duration of the administrative dispute, and as someone who applies the Law on daily basis, I must say that although we strive to have both efficiency and quality, this is not always easy. The administration has to contribute to the establishment of a balance between these concepts as well.”
By the end of October this year, the Ministry of Public Administration and the Ministry of Finance will be in possession of exact number of employees, promised Nedeljkovic Vukčević, answering the media question, after which the finalization of the methodology for determining the optimal number of employees in our administration will take place.
Although Ministry of Public Administration claims to build up capacities of the Administrative Inspectorate, opposition-run municipalities were disproportionately a subject of inspection oversight during the last year.
The Administrative Inspectorate last year conducted supervision of 107 subjects, out of which 82 were in the bodies and services of the local administration and 25 in the regional units and branches of the Directorate of Internal Administrative Affairs of the Ministry of Interior.
The Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) had insight into the last year’s inspection records. They demonstrate that more than half of the controls were carried out in local self-governments, and that nearly one fifth of controls in the period from January to November refer to Kolašin Municipality.
The Ministry considers that this cannot be attributed to political influence and says that this year’s Plan of Inspection includes following municipalities: Tuzi and Golubovci, Petnjica, Gusinje, Pljevlja and Herceg Novi. In these municipalities, the inspectors will, as they say, control the implementation of the Law on Administrative Procedure, the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, the Law on Free Access to Information and of the other regulations.
“The same Plan of Inspection provides for the control of civil service in the Ministry of Finance – regional units of the Property Administration,” as emphasized from the Ministry of Public Administration.
The Ministry dismissed the accusations that Administrative Inspectorate is used for exerting disproportionate influence on the municipalities managed by the parties that are not in power at the national level.
“In mentioned cases which gained a lot of public attention, the Administrative Inspectorate performed oversight upon the initiatives of employees and citizens, so this cannot be attributed to political influence,” the Ministry replied.
The Institute Alternative (IA) in the analyses of the state of public administration reform pointed out that the capacities of Administrative Inspectorate in early 2017 were at the lowest level in the last few years. The analysis states that, after the establishment of the Ministry of Public Administration, two administrative inspectors were re-assigned to different work places, although, as persons in office, they are especially protected and should not be assigned to different work places.
They also reminded of the case of the former Chief Administrative Inspector Dragica Anđelić, whose dismissal is under administrative dispute. Anđelic was dismissed by the Government’s decision, in a move she claimed to be a case of political retaliation.
The CIN-CG asked the Ministry for the explanation and basis for not filling the vacant workplaces of administrative inspectors, given the declarative commitment to capacity-building.
“We are aware of the fact that the reform cannot be implemented without a well-established supervisory mechanism … In this context, special emphasis is placed on strengthening the capacity of Administrative Inspectorate, which implies not only the new recruitment of inspectors, but also strengthening capacities of the existing ones…” they responded.
The Ministry claims that Anđelić, the former Chief Administrative Inspector, was dismissed because several obligations were not fulfilled in the previous period, in accordance with deadlines and in a professional manner, which allegedly undermined the efficiency of that body. Approximately 40 percent of the last year’s initiatives have not been considered by the Administrative Inspectorate. However, in the Ministry they emphasize that they will consider them this year, and that other inspections also work this way. The Ministry says that inspectors carried out 238 inspections from January to mid-August, 20 percent more than in the same period last year.
The Ministry led by Suzana Pribilović also stated that the Council for Public Administration Reform has been established with the task of political coordination of the reform. This body was formed in September 2016. It is comprised from members of the Government, the Union of Municipalities and two members from the non-governmental sector. The Council recently discussed the Report on the Implementation of the Public Administration Reform Strategy for the period July 2016 – July 2017. The report was not supported by Stevo Muk, a member of the Council on behalf of the Institute Alternative.
“The Council kept quiet about the fact that I did not support the adoption of the Report which is delivered to the European Commission”, Muk stated for CIN-CG.
He also states that despite the assurance of the Vice President Pažin, there was no information that Muk did not support the adoption of the report. In his public statement, Muk said that the Ministry of Public Administration has implemented 5 out of 15 envisaged measures. He asked for the personal accountability for not fulfilling obligations. According to him, the report speaks only in several places about the reasons and causes of poor realization and it is not clear how much was achieved in realization of the obligations in the field of development and coordination of public policies.
Further, Muk states that report contains inaccurate claims such as that the Government could not adopt two annual reports on the implementation of the Decree on cooperation between state administration and NGOs during public hearings. The stated reason for non-adoption is non-functioning of the Council for the Development of NGOs, whose opinion is needed for adoption of reports.
Muk finds it problematic that the report does not even contain the latest information in the field of public finance management, nor does it explain why we still do not have a state property register.
In the Report adopted by the Council, it is stated that Montenegro made progress in e-participation.
“The UNPACS study of the United Nations, showed that, according to the e-participation index, Montenegro is in 2016 ranked 17th with an index of 0.8305. In 2014, Montenegro was ranked 49th, while in 2016 it went up 32 places and is positioned at 17th place,” as stated in the report.
However, Muk states that it is of high concern that this information is taken without a grain of doubt, with the claim that Montenegro is in the top 25 best rated countries in the world regarding the use of online public consultations. He reminded that “ e-consultations do not exist in Montenegro”.
Although the Ministry announced that the Council noted that the report represents an improved and higher quality way of reporting on the results being achieved, Muk points out that this document is not sufficiently objective.
“The key disadvantage of the report is a formalistic, bureaucratic vocabulary and style that does not speak openly enough about the reasons and causes of poor results. Furthermore, in many places, it takes positive information uncritically, and keeps silent about the negative one…”, said Muk.
Muk also responded to CIN-CG that the Council has an obligation to make the process transparent. So far nothing has been done in this respect.
“The Council must change the document it adopts, taking into account the criticisms and contributions of civil society, rather than overturning them and deciding by the majority of the government members. Otherwise, this will be another Council rendered meaningless, “said Muk.
How much has the Law on Access to Information contributed to the reform
The Public Administration Reform Strategy had also envisaged amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information, which were criticized by the NGO sector during and after its adoption. The leaders of five opposition parties filed a motion for the assessment of the constitutionality of the provisions of the Law, which, as they claim, pose more limitations to the right of access to public information than prescribed by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has not yet considered this initiative.
The Ministry of Public Administration, which took over supervision over the implementation of this Law from the Ministry of Culture, did not respond directly to these allegations. “The position of the Ministry is that implementation of existing legal solutions in practice should be monitored, and, based on monitoring findings, legal framework enhanced,” reads the response. The Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and Free Access to Information did not answer the CIN-CG questions regarding the criticism that the Law on Free Access to Information is a step backwards.
Further, the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and Free Access to Information did not respond in which phase is the adoption of bylaws which are to regulate new areas introduced by the Law on Free Access to Information, concerning the re-use of public data. Deadline for the adoption of these acts expired in mid-August. The Agency did not provide answers about the manner in which these by-laws would elaborate the area of re-use and access to information, and how much would these procedures cost the citizens.
The new Law on Free Access to Information has not been published on the Agency’s website either, only the previous one from 2012. Also, the website does not contain the new guide for access to information held by that institution, which should have been drafted and published within 30 days from the start of the implementation of the new Law.
This article was created with the assistance of the European Union within the project “Civil Society for Good Governance: to Act and Account!”, conducted by the Institute Alternative, Bonum, Natura, New Horizon and the Centre for Investigative Journalism. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author and in no way reflect the views of the European Union.
This paper addresses deficiencies in the legal and institutional frameworks in an area particularly prone to corruption – recruitment in local self-governments. The poor legal framework currently in place spoils the system and hampers merit-based recruitment.
The Law on Local Self-Government only partly regulates the legal status of local civil servants and employees, referring to analogous implementation of the rules and procedures in the law that regulates recruitment at the central level of state administration. However, many deficiencies have been seen in the analogous implementation of the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees. The local sector employs around 20,000 people, but the law is applied in an analogous manner to only around 4,000 employees working directly for local self-government bodies. Another 16,000 local employees, working mostly in public companies and public institutions established or owned by municipalities, are subject solely to the loose rules prescribed by the Labour Law.
This policy brief has been prepared in the framework of the TRAIN Programme 2017 (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).
A full alignment with the European Court of Human Rights practice is still a commitment to be met by Montenegro. It is what has been consistently written in the progress reports as well as in the Report of the European Commission on Montenegro, published in November 2016. I am sure that the authors of this report did not have in mind that Montenegro should learn from Azerbaijan.
And it is precisely what happened. The announcement from the cabinet of the President of the Supreme Court states the following:
“The delegation of the Supreme Court of Montenegro run by the President, Vesna Medenica, will pay an official visit to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 26-28 September, upon the invitation of the President of its court, Ramiz Rzayev. During the three-day visit, Montenegrin judges will exchange experiences with Azerbaijani colleagues regarding results and challenges in the work of national court systems, with particular focus on cooperation with the European Court of Human Rights and the use of information technology in court service delivery. The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, as well as the minister of justice, Fikrat Mammadov, will also host the Montenegrin delegation separately. The visit to the court of Republic of Azerbaijan is a follow-up of an interactive dialogue and successful cooperation established in 2016, when President Rzayev was in the official visit to the Supreme Court of Montenegro”. Namely, the announcement specifically states: “with particular focus on cooperation with the European Court of Human Rights”. What can be learned from Azerbaijan? How to keep human rights activists in prison, despite decisions of the European Court of Human Rights stating that their detention is against the law?
In its Freedom in the World Report 2017, Freedom House reminds that Azerbaijan is disrespecting the decision of the European Court of Human Rights from 2014, with political capture of Ilgar Mammadov, the leader of the oppositional movement REAL. Also, in the Freedom House report Nations in Transit, it is stated that within the failure of national courts to secure justice, the European Court of Human Rights started a number of cases against Azerbaijan. By the end of 2016, the European Court of Human Rights brought in seven verdicts against the state, including three decisions regarding the violation of human rights of political prisoners.
Perhaps it would be more honest to say that the visit is regarding learning about “non-cooperation” of Azerbaijan with the European Court of Human Rights?
As a reminder, Azerbaijan is a country that is at the bottom of the list of countries that respect human rights, and at the bottom of the list of democracies. Good quality research stories on corruption, known under the name “Caviar Diplomacy”, were published by the European Stability Initiative, a renowned international non-governmental organisation. As a result of the report, an investigation was started in Italy and other countries, as well as in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe where a few MPs were manipulated to promote Azerbaijan as the “leader in the region”, at the expense of an objective and dreary image on the state of human rights in this dictatorship.
The investigation of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) points out that “from 2012 to 2014, while the Azerbaijani government was conducing mass arrests of activists and journalists, the members of the ruling elite in the country were using a secret fund for providing bribes to European politicians, luxurious clothes shopping, money laundering and other personal gains. The bank documents show that the fund was worth around 2.5 billion euros. This fund, as it is claimed, was misused for buying silence. At least three European politicians, a journalist who was writing stories to the friends of the regime, and economists who praised the government, were among the receivers of the Azerbaijani money. In some cases, these renowned persons were in a position to mobilise important international organisations, such as UNESCO and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to achieve PR victories for the Azerbaijani regime. During this period, the Azerbaijani government captured more than 90 human rights activists, opposition politicians and journalists (such as the OCCRP journalist Khadija Ismayilova), under political charges.
It really seems that the Montenegrin government, prone to promoting corruptive practices, has quite a lot of common topics with their colleagues from Azerbaijan.
For the sake of being precise, Vesna Medenica was not alone in Azerbaijan, as she was accompanied by Svetlana Vujanović, the judge of the Supreme court, who is also the wife of the President of Montenegro, Filip Vujanović. It is of lesser importance, and not known, who else was part of the delegation, and the number of days they spent for getting familiar with the heroic fight of the people and administration of Azerbaijan against the unpopular occupant, the European Court of Human Rights. In Montenegrin pro-European society, the media remained mute, instead of taking action and asking such and similar questions regarding the visit to Azerbaijan.
So it happened that on the same day when the delegation of the Supreme court went to have an “interactive dialogue” with their buddies from Azerbaijan, the Appellate court pronounced the verdict on the Šarić case, stating that Duško Šarić and the rest of the crew were not guilty of money laundering – for some 19.3 million euros for which our judiciary has been prosecuting them since 2010.
Right upon the return from Azerbaijan, Vesna Medenica commented on the case against the former minister and current MP of DPS subject to statute of limitations. When asked by a journalist whether she will emphasise the accountability of judges for the statute of limitation, she replied: “The Law does not foresee that, even if a mistake was made, which is not something I am implying, a judge that made the decision should be held accountable, but that certain cumulative conditions must be met”. She did not further state what these cumulative conditions were, though she ended her statement with an undefinable smile/laughter. The journalists did not have any follow-up questions. She is, after all, in a position to act this way.
This must have been a laughable matter as well to the ruler from the shadow, Đukanović Milo, whose buddy Aleksandar Vučić must have winked at the situation, and the good guy from Pljevlja, Filip Vuković, surely opened a bottle of Champaign on this occasion.
Let us get back to the beginning and take a look at how comedian-like the recommendations from the Report of the European Commission no Montenegro must seem in the given context – “Montenegro should continue providing guidelines to the judiciary in order to align the decisions to the European Court of Human Rights’ practice in the area of freedom of expression, particularly by establishing a group of specialised first instance judges”. If we continue down this road, soon the basic courts’ judges will start massively visiting Azerbaijan.
Urgent and coordinated action of Administrative Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro and Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APC), upon “anonymous” reports regarding potential conflict of interest of members of the RTCG Council, is raising our suspicion and concern that this is a politically-instructed action of both organs ordered by the ruling party, with an objective to return RTCG back under their direct control. Therefore, after the announcement of procedure for dismissal in the Committee of the Parliament managed by DPS, we invite domestic and international public to carefully follow further development of this situation and conduct of Administrative Committee, which should now determine itself upon decisions of Agency for Prevention of Corruption.
This suspicion is based on the selectivity of the conduct of both aforementioned organs.
Administrative Committee has in previous years, especially in procedures of election and appointment to various organs and agencies, demonstrated crude violation of the law, which was also confirmed by verdicts of judicial organs. Thus, the Administrative Committee has legitimized itself as a working body of DPS, and not the Parliament, in which it should consistently defend the legality of procedures and proceedings. Hence, it is hard to believe that urgent processing of “anonymous” reports is of “public interest for RTCG”, as Chairman of the Committee, Ljuidj Škrelja, tried to explain implausibly.
At the same time, Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APC), since its establishment, failed to achieve any remarkable result in the fight against corruption, which is the reason it was founded. This ascertainment comes also from relevant international addresses, which also seek concrete results from this institution. In any of the segments of its jurisdiction: conflict of interest, financing of political parties, protection of whistle-blowers, the APC has in specific cases demonstrated that it has no integrity, independence, and autonomy, but that this institution is also under the control of DPS.
Therefore, it is no surprise that representative of NGOs in the Council, Goran Đurović, is first object of “anonymous” report. It is interesting to remind that as many as 1016 public officials did not submit reports on their income and property within deadline prescribed by law in 2017, but this was not the subject of urgent action by APC. Absence of publication of this report represents a crude violation of the Law on Prevention of Corruption. On the other hand, the APC urgently deals with “anonymous” reports to examine whether production of lettuce by this member of the Council is in conflict with performance of function of a member of the RTCG Council.
Due to inability to link the production of lettuce directly with the production of TV programmes, the APC passes the decision that a member of the RTCG Council, Goran Đurović, violated Law on Prevention of Corruption because he did not vacate the position of executive director in an agricultural enterprise timely. It is important to note that Goran Đurović could not perform the role of the authorized person of a company, even the one who deals with selling lettuce, which he founded during his term of office, and not prior to assuming office. However, it should be noted that the moment he learned that this is not a permitted action, he corrected the same, i.e. he is no longer an authorized person. The fact that he was an authorized person could be found out from his property card since he submitted the same, not knowing that the same was not lawful.
However, this also does not constitute the violation of the Law on National Public Broadcaster and Radio Television of Montenegro and the basis for eventual dismissal, since the same company is neither registered for performing nor has interest in legal entities involved in the production of radio and TV programmes. Therefore, any attempt of dismissal would be an attempt to unlawfully change the RTCG’s governing body. Agency should be doing its job, but abuse should not be allowed in any manner, i.e. attempt to conduct unlawful dismissal of the member of the Council under media storm. Obviously, the target here is the RTCG Council, clearly for political reasons.
In short, we seek enforcement of the law and there is no legal basis for Goran Đurović to be dismissed since misdemeanour behaviour was removed.
Such mechanisms of DPS for confronting civil sector activists whose operation and work they cannot influence is not a novelty. We have witnessed, in previous years, dirty campaigns aimed at infringing honor and reputation of NGO activists, which were conducted by media directly controlled by DPS. Institute of so-called “anonymous” report is also well known to us, as it was used in the past by the Prosecution to “screen” work of respectable NGOs that jeopardized interests of powerful structures of authority. It was also urgently acted upon those anonymous reports, with accompanying orchestrated media support, so means of confrontation are known, only direct perpetrators are being alternated.
Administrative Committee has the opportunity to confirm the decision of Agency on misdemeanor or to initiate unlawful dismissal of members of the Council. Should the second happen, our concern that it is a matter of organized action to destabilize work of the Council and the RTCG which are beginning to profile as services for benefit of all citizens will only be confirmed.
Ana Novaković, Executive Director, Centre of Development of Non-Governmental Ogranizations (CDNGO)
Zlatko Vujović, President of MB, Centre for Monitoring and Research (CeMI)
Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director, Centre for Civic Education (CCE)
Stevo Muk, President of MB, Institute Alternative (IA)
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
A full alignment with the European Court of Human Rights practice is still a commitment to be met by Montenegro. It is what has been consistently written in the progress reports as well as in the Report of the European Commission on Montenegro, published in November 2016. I am sure that the authors of this report did not have in mind that Montenegro should learn from Azerbaijan.