Posted on

Army and Police Officers Right to Attend Public Assemblies

The Law on the Army and the Law on Internal Affairs allow officers of the Army and Police to attend the protest, party and other political assemblies without wearing uniform. This was highlighted by NGOs Human Rights Action (HRA) and Institute Alternative (IA) in a letter sent to the Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of Montenegro, Mr. Dragutin Dakić, regarding his recent statements that he did not approve of the participation of army officers at the processions and the information that the General Staff of the Montenegrin Army summons Army officers for questioning for attending them. With regard to other activities, such as communication on social networks, the NGOs proposed that legal prohibitions on “political activity” and “expression of political beliefs” be specified by the law.

In the letter, we also emphasized that the Article 60 of the Law on the Army allows Army officials to attend protest, party and other political gatherings without uniform. Although this law generally prohibits “the expression of political beliefs” (Article 18, paragraph 2), as well as the Law on Civil Servants (Article 9), no law defines these terms. Therefore, even if the processions are considered not only a religious assembly but a protest gathering of a political character, members of the security forces may again attend such a gathering under the condition that they are not in uniform.

International human rights treaties allow states to restrict freedom of expression and assembly for members of the security forces (European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 11, para. 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 21, para. 2) when it is necessary for achieving legitimate aims, especially preserve political neutrality of those forces. However, states are required to specify this restriction appropriately by law, so that officers of the army and police may accordingly foresee how the law will be applied and harmonize their behaviour. In their legislative practice, states treat this issue differently, some less and some more restrictive.

In Montenegro, Article 9 of the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees obliges civil servants and state employees to carry out “work” in a politically neutral and impartial manner, in accordance with the public interest, and to “refrain from public expression of their political beliefs”. The Law on the Army also prescribes, in principle, “the duty of military officers to refrain from publicly expression of their political beliefs”, but also explicitly permits the attendance of “protest or political gatherings and other non-military activities”, provided that these gatherings are not attended in uniform (Art. 60). It is almost the same situation with the Law on Internal Affairs, which forbids officials of this Ministry and Police from membership in a political party and political activity (Article 94, paragraph 2), but, like the Law on the Army, permits the attendance of “party and political assemblies” if they do not wear a uniform (Article 94, paragraph 3).

The terms “public expression of political belief” and “political activity” are not defined by any law, while attending “protest or political assemblies” or “party and political assemblies” by the Law on the Army and the Law on Internal Affairs is allowed without wearing a uniform, hence such behaviour cannot be considered unlawful.

However, it remains unclear whether other activities, such as posting photos of processions on social networks and commenting on them, can be considered prohibited by “expressing of political beliefs” and “political activity”, since these terms are not defined.

IA and HRA appealed to the Chief of General Staff to advocate for specification of these legal terms, so that these laws, which restrict human rights of officers, meet the “predictability” standard which requires that the law limiting human rights to be sufficiently precise that could predict how it would be applied and to prevent arbitrary i.e. the widespread application of restrictions (see, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in case Rekvenyi v. Hungary, 1999).

This especially because the Law on the Army, as a disciplinary offence, prescribes “violation of the regulations on the prohibition of political activity” (Article 157, paragraph 1, item 23) and provides for disciplinary punishment in the form of preventing promotion, salary reduction, removal from duty in the Army, etc. The Code of Military Ethics also does not provide clarification, but reiterates the legal provision that service in the military is politically neutral (paragraph 5, item 1), obliges to refrain from any conduct that may have a negative effect on the Army’s reputation and relations in the Army (para. 5, item 6), and prohibits the presence or participation only in those activities and events that promote intolerance towards other persons or discrimination, send hate messages or insults or express intolerance, and which are publicly and ethically unacceptable (item 8).

We also draw attention to the fact that within the project “Voice Your Rights!- Expanding Space for Free Assemblies” implemented by IA and HRA with the support of the European Union through the Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, Program for Montenegro 2018, we will continue to monitor freedom of peaceful assembly in Montenegro.

Letter sent to the Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of Montenegro, Mr. Dragutin Dakić can be read here.

Signatories of the letter:

Tea Gorjanc Prelević, Executive Director of the NGO Human Rights Action
Stevo Muk, President of the Managing Board of the NGO Institute Alternative

Posted on

The new approach on Enlargement: good ideas in need of a captain

The European Commission’s proposal for a revised approach to enlargement takes on board key proposals from SELDI’s regional anticorruption reports and policy briefs, including:

  • a stronger focus on political engagement and economic fundamentals;
  • mainstreaming of anti-corruption efforts in more policies and not just in anti-corruption institutions and the judiciary;
  • a continuous evident clear engagement to reforms from local elites;
  • tackling third countries’ malign influence;
  • protecting the important EC – civil society relations, including their financial underpinning from unexpected distress.

The vitality an EU commitment to the new approach will be tested soon at the EU – Western Balkans Summit in Zagreb in May 2020. Their impact would ultimately depend on the leadership, the will, and the skills of the EU to make democracy deliver for the region.

Posted on

Perception of Public Administration

Looking at general population, citizens of Montenegro assigned a somewhat better score to the quality of work of public administration in 2019 than in the two preceding years when we did the same survey.

They identified the following major problems of public administration: inefficiency, corruption, employment based on personal connections and impolite behaviour of civil servants. Similarly to the two preceding years, citizens perceived reducing corruption as the best measure to improve the performance of public administration bodies. On the other hand, while the number of those proposing stricter internal controls and simplified procedures was on the decline, the number of those who believed that higher civil servants’ salaries and stricter sanctions would have a positive impact on the performance was on the rise.

With regard to the way the public administration managed its budgets, more than one-half of citizens thought that was not the case. Along the lines of the previous rounds of surveys, the biggest share of Montenegrin citizens reiterated in 2019 that they saw political connections as the key factor in public administration recruitment; almost one-in-four considered friendships/ family relationships and candidates’ skills as the key factors.

In addition, citizens reported slow processing, impolite behaviour of civil servants and long times spent in queues as the specific problems encountered by them in the course of communication with the public administration authorities. Also, when asked to assess the time required to obtain a decision concerning an application filed with the public administration authorities, almost one-half of citizens thought that process was slow, while one-third believed that the pace was acceptable. Lastly, it was recorded that citizens had become more familiar with the public administration’s e-portal over the past three years; however, that did not result in their greater use of the portal.

Posted on

Integrity of Recruitment in State Authorities: Assessment of Abilities or Partisanship?

This analysis covers the assessment procedure of the candidates for jobs with state authorities, as the segment that will define the course of further development of Montenegrin state administration, setting it either toward further politicisation or toward professionalisation, as a proclaimed objective of the current Public Administration Reform Strategy.

Research has pointed to the presence of regulatory and practical problems that jeopardise the integrity of the assessment panels and the overall testing procedure, which affects implementation of the principles of merit-based recruitment in state authorities.

The key improvement consists in enabling candidates to perform testing by electronic means, since this type of “automatization” of procedures diminishes potential undue favoritism of certain candidates in this phase of the recruitment. However, there are no guarantees of political impartiality of the assessment panels’ members selected from the ranks of professionals. The state authority that is recruiting is solely responsible for designing the practical tests, which leaves room for some candidates to be favoured and essentially implies that the roles of individual panel members are not identical.

On the other hand, external scrutiny of the quality of implementation of the assessment by the civil society is hampered by the HRMA denying access to copies of tests and minutes from interviews. Only access to general assessment reports is provided, which do not enable insight into specific tasks, questions and answers provided. Lack of transparency, together with some legal shortcomings, does not signal substantial progress towards establishment of a merit-based system in the Montenegrin administration. This is in particular so given that the new Law does not envisage mandatory hiring of the candidates who ended up as top-ranked after the assessment. Subsequent under-regulated conversations with the shortlisted candidates do not constitute a formal part of the assessment, although they may prove decisive in the selection process.

Posted on

Clarifications: Call for Proposals ‘’Voice Your Rights! – Expanding Space for Free Assemblies”

C L A R I F I C A T I O N S

regarding the Call for Proposals – Small Grants Facility
For CSOs from Montenegro,
within the project ‘’Voice Your Rights! – Expanding Space for Free Assemblies”

Questions asked at the info session:

Question 1: Is it recommendable for project activities to be implemented in the territory of one or more municipalities? Do those who implement the project in territory of more municipalities have the advantage?

This condition is not defined in the Call for Proposals, but both options are acceptable. In both cases, the Evaluation Committee will evaluate the feasibility of the project, regarding the project activities, project duration and budget.

Question 2: Should the project involve minors? Is it possible for minors aged 15-18 be the target group of projects?

Yes, the target group of the project can be minors, as long as their participation in the project (if planned) is on a voluntary basis. The Evaluation Committee will evaluate whether the target groups are clearly defined, and whether the project aims meet their needs.

Question 3: Does the limit, which implies that only CSOs with an annual budget which is less than € 20,000 can apply, refers to 2018 or 2019?

The restriction refers to both years for which the applicant CSO must submit their financial statements, balance sheets and income statement. In addition to applying for the Call for Proposals, copies of the balance sheets and income statements for 2018 and 2019. must be submitted, and the organization’s budget for both years must be less than 20,000€.

However, if the organization has not yet submitted the final statement (balance sheet and income statement) to the Tax Administration, since the deadline for submission is 31 March 2020, copies of the balance sheet and income statement for 2017 and 2018 will be accepted. In this case, the budget of the organization in 2017 and 2018 must be less than 20,000€.

Organizations which are registered in 2019. are required to provide a copy of the balance sheet and income statement for that year, in which case it is necessary that their budget in that year is less than 20,000€.

Organizations registered in 2018 that have not yet submitted their final statement to the Tax Administration for 2019, (as the legal deadline has not yet expired), should provide copies of the balance sheets and income statement for 2018, but their budget in that year may not exceed 20,000€.

By 21 February 2020, there were no questions asked via e-mail.

Clarifications and answers to all questions asked you can download here.

Please be reminded that the deadline for applications is 28 February 2020, until 5 PM, and project proposals should be sent to info@institut-alternativa.org.

Project “’Voice Your Rights! – Expanding Space for Free Assemblies” is being implemented by Institute Alternative (IA), in partnership with Human Rights Action (HRA) and supported by European Union through the Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, Programme for Montenegro 2018. The content is the sole responsibility of Institute Alternative and in no way reflects the views of the European Union.

Posted on

Montenegro’s EU Integrations

Our Dina’s great interview for daily newspaper Vijesti on enlargement policy and other aspects of Montenegro’s integration in European Union (EU).

1) New methodology

The new methodology is a new important moment for refreshing the idea of enlargement. It is still in the draft form and there is a room for it’s improvement. That is why I spoke at the European Parliament on Wednesday about what can be further improved from the perspective of the civil society that monitors the negotiations, in order to have as less as possible problems in its implementation later. Throughout 2019, our regional TEN network has advocated proposals in six leading European capitals on how to revive enlargement, how to make it more efficient, more functional, and finally more successful. We are pleased to say that we have succeeded and that some of our ideas came first in the French non-paper and then in the draft of the Commission.

  •  I represented two main points: more sticks and more carrots. So, from our perspective, negotiation process needs to be even more thorough, more demanding and more precise that it has been so far, in order for our countries to truly transform themselves during this period, because this is a unique opportunity for us. This means better monitoring but also a greater political level of attention on these issues, from both sides, EU and Western Balkan countries. We have elaborated this segment to the level of technical details, especially regarding the formulation of benchmarks, the assessment of the situation on the ground, transparency and greater involvement of all who can contribute.
  • On the other side, we have tried to explain to the decision-makers in the member states, especially to those sceptical regarding the enlargement, that the ambiguous and contradictory messages that they persistently send about their unwillingness for enlargement to happen, seriously demotivate political elites to do what is required. If the moment of membership is far away, governments have no reason to refrain from undemocratic practices. I used the example of the unconstitutional election of the President of the Supreme Court in Montenegro. Why do something now when the ‘’reward’’ will come ten years from now? Based on this experience, we represented the statement that it is important for our countries to receive higher level of support from the EU during the negotiation process, and not at the end of the road (financial, expert, in the form of our gradual EU integration). This recommendation came from the realisation that the negotiations took a very long time, that they were exhausting, uncertain, and, for example in Montenegro, currently very static.

2) Should Montenegro switch to a new accession model?

I assume that the Government is restrained and has a fear of the new and unknown accession model, but there is also an increasing awareness that it is difficult to go forward acting like we used to. New methodology empowers members state to slow down negotiations and it takes us back, which is an objective risk, but it also provides more assistance along the way. My impression is that both Montenegro and Serbia are advised to switch to the new model. This process is ongoing and it would be good to open a social and institutional dialogue on the benefits and disadvantages of both options in a timely manner.

3) What is required in negotiation process?

To make this as simple as possible, the reforms which we need to implement require reduction of discretion and power in the hands of the authorities in all areas of governance. These reforms are realistically demanding, represent a voluntary giving up on power by political elites. That is why political structures in Western Balkans need to be sure that they narrow its power that some concrete benefits will indeed be gained on that path. Persistent public pressure to keep all social actors on that path is crucial for this to happen.

4) Why is Montenegro stuck in the negotiations?

There are numerous factors influencing our underperformance, from lack of will to lack of capacity and ideas, and lately I have noticed one that I have not perceive later that way. From the perspective of progress in EU integrations, elections are problem and brake that often gets us out of the way. Not the election conditions, that is particular issue, but the elections themselves because of which we are losing focus from integrations and which are always conducted dramatically. Elections represent a longer period of time when the government only thinks about how to retain power and the opposition only thinks about how to come to power. This has taken unimagined proportions and too much public understanding for such a situation.

I’m not saying that we should give up on elections, of course, but that political parties and social actors should show greater seriousness and responsibility in relation to basic public interests, and that issue of integration must be on supra-party level, of vital national importance, saved from daily politics and mutual disputes of the ruling and opposition parties.

5) Why?

European Union is not just an apple on the table waiting for us to take it. The situation is much more complicated. Now is the unique chance for us to reach something in which we lag behind for 30 years. EU is not too much in the mood for enlargement, but under great pressure, which quite unexpectedly emerged after the non-opening of negotiations with Northern Macedonia and Albania, they made a mutual agreement to nevertheless again make promise that all eligible will be accepted for membership. Guarantees have been raised a little, but not enough. It is still uncertain whether our neighbours will start negotiations, and if it doesn not happen, it will be the final stroke to enlargement policy. In practice this means that the EU will not follow the merit system but the political decision. EU countries are as well guided by the views of their constituents who do not support enlargement. I’m not sure that everyone in Montenegro takes this moment seriously. They act like we have plenty of time, while the whole country is living in the waiting room for decades. I am also aware that the reality is that very soon, we too will turn off the EU road with some of our topics, and that EU will be focused on its crises.

6) So, the accession scenario for Montenegro is not optimistic?

To be realistic, situation is not good. We will have to really impress the member states and as well to convince our citizens to accept enlargement. But realistically, it does not seem to me that we will be entering this dynamic phase of change, renewal and active work on integration any time soon. Integrations are also a challenge for a much larger countries with better administrations. Montenegrin administration does not have enough capacity and it is quite worn out considering 15 years of dealing with reforms. The lack of meritocracy in government led to not only a lack of energy, but also a vision. You would be surprised how only few people are ‘’pushing’’ the whole process of national importance.

The other big delusion I see in many institutions that should carry reforms is the self-deception that they are already excellent. How to fix them when they already see themselves as good enough? With this narcissism comes lack of ideas.

It is a natural resistance to changes: but it is easier when there is a maturity and awareness of their necessity – as when it hates you to lose weight, but then because of seriously threatened health you realize that you have to.

It is not a cliché but rather a truth that only society as a while can bring us into the EU. Everyone should write projects and pull out EU and bilateral funds: government bodies, public owned enterprises, local authorities, schools, cultural centres, hospitals, media, universities. They should improve networking with associations in their sectors, exchange ideas and improve work processes and methodologies. However, there is not enough of such activism in society. There are as well agriculture, infrastructure, environmental protection, air pollution. The EU has policies and resources to help and support these things, which are essential to us.

7) Describe attitude of political elites toward EU agenda commitments

Most stakeholders do not show understanding of the common interest in pushing this process forward. Attitude of those in ruling parties ‘’we will do anything as long as that does not cost us losing the power’’, and those in opposition parties is ‘’it is problem of the Democratic party of socialists, which is the ruling party’’. Of course, I’m not saying that they should choose their priorities, electoral strategy and tactics, I’m saying what is the current situation we have. As a citizen, I have the right to notice that such behaviour brought troubles for over 30 years. All of the politicians are doing and living fine, both those in power and those in opposition, while, unfortunately, citizens do not consider this issue as enough important. They are used that ‘’it is what it is’’ and accepted it. In the eight year of accession negotiations, we are not in an era of progress ad enlightenment, but in a total delirium.

In our state, power is seen as a prey, and not the tool to be used in order to achieve common good. Almost everywhere in the world it’s like this but to a certain extent, while in our country it has reached such extent that even the majority of those and power and opposition do not even pretend anymore that it is not like that. This is best seen by how many public stakeholders speaks about national share of power like it is justly distribution. As this is a completely normal thing. This approach will have long lasting consequences on society in all areas. Because of this immaturity, we are a pre-political society that does not know to recognize nor to commit itself to its benefit.

8) What are the consequences exclusive behaviour of both those in ruling and opposition parties?

If we take reform of the judiciary and anti-corruption as example, which are Chapter 23, we can say that this is the area where joint solutions between authorities and opposition need to be found. No progress has been made here. Prevalence of action position in judiciary is problem of the society which I do not think that should be solved in easiest way, by the amendments of the Constitution, but in a more difficult way – agreement between the authorities and opposition for the common good. If that somehow worked, it might generally pave the road to the last phase of EU integrations. Experience of this agreement might improve the overall situation and change the social paradigm of irrational stubbornness.

Montenegrin judiciary solutions are atypical and demanding, but especially because of our context as that. This contributes to the leaving of unilateral appointments that society does not have trust in. The point was the professionalisation and the appointment of undoubtedly competent ones, and not the share of prey. It may happen to all of us that we may be stuck in a process with the combination of circumstances and we may suffer from a common unconsciousness on this issue. Unproductive antagonisms of political parties must be put aside when it comes to the crucial issues of society. The situation in the judiciary is such issue.

A similar situation is with the tenders of anti-corruption institutions and especially regarding director of Agency for Prevention of Corruption. Not even one independent candidate, with critical opinion, with such good references that are not easy to reject, in who citizens will trust, has not applied for this position. Agency is extremely important for the opposition in the context of upcoming elections, control of political party funding, misuses of public funds during elections, etc. In this particular case, there is also the support of the EU, which spoke negatively about the previous director and is closely following the new appointments. However, even in such favourable circumstances, there are no candidates.

Author: Mila Radulović

The interview was originally published in the daily news ‘’Vijesti’’, as well on the ‘’Vijesti’’ portal.