Ana Đurnić, public policy researcher at Institute Alternative commented the appointment of the Anti-Corruption Agency’s Council Members. She finds problematic the opinion of the Commission for evaluation of candidates that 11 out of 12 candidates do not fulfil conditions for appointment, since they did not pass the professional exam for work in the state administration.
Đurnić stated that Commission is performing “legal gymnastics” in order to find unjustified excuses to prevent the appointment of certain people to that Council.
“The Commission is imposing the condition which is not to be found in the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees and Law on Prevention of Corruption, nor in the public call for the candidates for the Council members”, Đurnić stated.
She pointed out that members of the Commission for appointing the members of the Council, Anti- Corruption Committee and all the MPs in the Parliament should now focus on professionally evaluating the candidates based on their credibility, independence, professionalism and experience in fight against corruption.
Full audio is available bellow, starting from 10:30.
Institute Alternative filed the Initiative to the Constitutional Court of Montenegro for the assessment of the constitutionality of provisions of the Law on the Maintenance of Residential Buildings, which the Government uses as a basis for issuing decisions on resolving the housing needs of public officials. We find that the by-laws regulating issues beyond this Law are being artificially kept alive as a “legacy” of the old system.
This refers to the Decision on the Settlement of Housing Needs of Civil Servants and State Employees and the Decision on the Manner and Criteria for Resolving the Housing Needs of Officials from 2014. These acts were adopted within the Law on Housing and Maintenance of Residential Buildings from 2011 and 2014. However, the new Law from 2018 states that these acts ‘’remain valid even after this law comes into force’’.
Disputed provisions are unconstitutionally placed under this Law as a basis for maintaining alive these two Decisions (by-laws) and for the unconstitutional practice widely used by the Government, the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council.
Although it sounds almost unbelievable, the Government has succeeded to keep these provisions in a Law that regulates ‘’rights and obligations of storey owners in terms of maintaining a residential building and common parts of a residential building’’, contrary to the Constitution and the legislative system.
Disputed provisions have survived through the years, not only as a legacy of the previous social system practices, but also contrary to other systemic legal solutions – the Law on Social Housing, the State Property Law and the regulations that stipulate the rights of public officials.
Disputed provisions, beside remaining under the Law where they do not belong, undermine the rule of law and indirectly discriminate against other citizens.
Disputed provisions are also problematic from the aspect of the Law on State Property, which prescribes the definition of an accommodation for the official purposes as an accommodation intended for elected and appointed persons during the performance of their public functions and duties. Therefore, purpose of ‘’accommodation’’ and a time limit ‘’during the performance of functions and duties’’ are clearly and precisely defined, thus demonstrating a clear legislators’ intention to determine the purpose and limitations of disposal of state property for the stated purposes.
Determining the legal basis for permanent settlement of housing needs of public officials and civil servants as in these two by-laws is discrimination against citizens employed in private companies and other legal entities.
While it is not controversial that the state temporary provides living conditions for a certain persons during their work (such as paying the rent contribution or enabling living in a state-owned apartment for, for example, a member of the Army of Montenegro or a police officer assigned away from his/hers residence), it is illegal to permanently dispose state property for such purpose. It is also illegal that the state provides loans for resolving housing needs, since this is what, in accordance with the Law on Banks, commercial banks do – in the market of these services, banks provide conditions for contracting housing loans to citizens of Montenegro.
In addition, it is discriminatory that the Government, through the Housing Commission, provides significantly more favorable conditions for resolving housing needs than it does through its public policies and its ‘’1000+’’ project implemented three times so far. Namely, within this project, ‘’40% of the funds are intended for users who are members of a family household of a public sector employee”, thus additionally discriminating, this time against the members of the same category of persons or social group.
What are the mechanisms of capturing security-intelligence services, how are they used for capturing other sectors and why this problem deserves greater attention within eurointegrations – these are the topics of the discussion that will be organized on June 4, 2019 at the Media Center (Grand hall, 2nd floor, Terazije 3, Belgrade, starting at 10am.
Discussion about following issues will also be opened at the event:
What can we learn from the example of security-intelligence services misuse in North Macedonia?
Why did the security-intelligence service in Montenegro escape the reform, even though this state has become a NATO member and is making progress in EU membership negotiations?
Is the development of special reports (so-called Pribe report) the most suitable way for addressing the politicization in the most important sectors in Montenegro and Serbia?
What are the consequences of neglecting the security-intelligence services reform in the process of eurointegrations and why it is necessary to include it in the areas that are the subject of negotiations and form the basis EU’s assessment of the progress of the countries of the region?
Answers to these questions will be offered by:
Magdalena Lembovska, Center for European Strategies – EUROTHINK, North Macedonia; Dina Bajramspahić, Institute Alternative, Montenegro; Predrag Petrović, Belgrade Center for Security Policy, Serbia;
This discussion is supported by the European Fund for the Balkans through the project ‘’Watching the Watchers: Towards Accountable Intelligence Services in the Western Balkans’’, which is jointly implemented by Belgrade Centre for Security Policy from Serbia, the Center for European Strategies – EUROTHINK from North Macedonia and Institute Alternative from Montenegro.
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
Disputed provisions are unconstitutionally placed under this Law as a basis for maintaining alive these two Decisions (by-laws) and for the unconstitutional practice widely used by the Government, the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council.
Magdalena Lembovska, Center for European Strategies – EUROTHINK, North Macedonia;