Year: 2021

During the first three quarters of 2021, the work of the Human Rights and Freedoms Committee was marked by the opposition boycott. On average, its meetings were attended by just 1.3 opposition members. In addition, the Committee’s activity plan for this year was not prepared in time and was adopted as late as April 2021; this was in part prompted by the delayed adoption of the Government Work Programme for 2021.

The boycott of the opposition members led to the absence of any initiatives for a stronger oversight role of the Committee. During the 13 Committee meetings, the MPs tabled no initiatives for control or consultative hearings. The three hearings included in the Committee’s Work Plan were not held either.

The Parliament’s Rules of Procedure do not stipulate clear criteria and procedures for the involvement of external stakeholders in the law-making process, which leads to unequal treatment. During the period covered by this Report, although it involved a large number of representatives of institutions, international organisations and the civil sector - the Committee did not demonstrate openness to the involvement of all stakeholders, as the Committee Chair rejected the Montenegrin Orthodox Church request to attend a meeting.

The Human Rights and Freedoms Committee stood out in terms of the number of conclusions and recommendations that it shared with the relevant institutions, for their information and follow-up action. However, no conclusions or recommendations for improvement were provided concerning the two reviewed reports on the state of personal data protection and access to information that were not endorsed by the Committee members.

Public administration reform (PAR) remains a key requirement for the EU aspirants on their accession path, and according to the revised enlargement methodology it is now part of the cluster on fundamentals (together with, for instance, rule of law, and economic criteria). As a complex and all-encompassing reform, PAR in the Western Balkan region has for years been thoroughly assessed through the lenses of the SIGMA Principles of Public Administration, developed by the OECD/SIGMA and endorsed by the EU. These Principles define what makes a well-functioning administration in terms of its ability to deliver transparent, efficient and effective services to citizens and to support socio-economic development.

The WeBER project has completed its second, 2019/2020 monitoring cycle. Its structured and evidence-based approach to PAR monitoring, just like in the first monitoring cycle in 2017/18, particularly focuses on PAR aspects with the highest relevance to the civil society and to the public.

The PAR Monitor methodology is rooted in the regional approach. The design of all WeBER indicators enables comparisons between the administrations in the Western Balkans and allows for regional comparability of results. In addition to the methodology, the PAR Monitor package comprises a comparative monitoring report for the entire WB region as well as six reports which elaborate on detailed findings for each administration. The present report provides results of the second monitoring exercise for Montenegro, including a set of actionable recommendations.

In the first three quarters of 2021, the Security and Defence Committee has been the most active parliamentary working body in terms of exercising the control function, bearing in mind that this committee held as many as two thirds of all control hearings in all working bodies of the Parliament during the first three quarters. In the period from December 17, 2020 to October 1, 2021 the Committee held seven sessions during which control hearings of 15 representatives of the executive power were conducted, while there were no consultative hearings.

However, the Committee predominantly exercised its control function through control hearings, while considerations of reports on performance and the situation in the security and defence sector was not sufficiently employed as a control mechanism. Additionally, the Security and Defence Committee has particularly neglected its role in controlling budget execution.

On the other hand, the Committee’s openness to opposition proposals is worth mentioning as a point of improvement in its overall performance. The fact that all three opposition initiatives to hold control hearings were accepted by the majority of Committee members, and that they resulted in scheduling control hearings of representatives of the executive, can serve as a positive example to other parliamentary working bodies.

In order to improve the work of the Committee, it is necessary to employ the institute of an interested working body and consider those draft laws that are relevant to the security and defence sector, and to propose conclusions and recommendations on reviewed reports and control hearings.

Most of the activities of the Committee on Economy, Finance and Budget fall within the scope of its legislative function, and are driven by the numerous acts of the regulators that are in the competence of this working body. Despite the ambitious Work Plan for 2021, the work of the Committee is faced with a standstill, bearing in mind that a meeting was not convened for three months. Only a quarter of the planned activities were implemented in the first three quarters of 2021.

The Committee does not consider the effects that the draft laws will have on the state budget in sufficient detail. There was no detailed discussion by MPs, and the law introducing child allowance was adopted in the plenary, although the Committee on Economy, Finance and Budget did not have insight into the necessary budget expenditures for this purpose, so it could not assess the effect on the budget.

The fact that the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Tax Administration, although sent for adoption in an expedited procedure, has been waiting for consideration for five months, speaks of the insufficient passage of government legislative proposals in the Parliament.

In order to improve the work of the Committee, it is necessary to ensure that the legislative proposals of MPs are accompanied by a detailed ex ante impact analysis, improve the control role of the Committee in overseeing budget execution, and by requiring submission of report on budget execution from the Government of Montenegro.

The Anti-corruption Committee is the least active parliamentary working body in Montenegro, a country with a concerning degree of corruption in many areas. Over the period of more than nine months following its establishment on 17 December 2020, the Committee held three meetings and discussed 12 points of the respective agendas. The Committee’s Work Plan for 2021 was adopted as late as in the fifth month of the year it referred to.

During the observed period, the Committee25 did not make use of the control mechanisms available to it to substantially improve the fight against corruption and organised crime. Although the 2021 amendments to the Law on the State Prosecution Service expanded the list of those to be ’’held to account’’ at the request of the Committee, none of the Committee members initiated a single control or consultative hearing.

Review of the petitions that citizens may submit to the Parliament and the Committee was only partially institutionalised on the basis of our earlier recommendations. Although the Parliament Service is required to deliver the response to the petitioner within 15 days, the deadlines for the petitions that fall within the remit of the working bodies themselves were not defined, so the petitions submitted to the Anti-corruption Committee during 2021 remained on hold for five months.

Recommendations for improving the work of the Committee are presented in the Report; they refer in particular to the stepping up of its oversight and legislative roles and enhancing the transparency of its work.

With 24 meetings held and 45 points included in the agendas by October 2021, the Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration was the most active one in the 27th Parliament of Montenegro. Overall, this Committee put in 44 hours more than the Anti-corruption Committee, which was the most passive working body of the Parliament during the observed period.

However, the implementation of the Committee’s Work Plan over the three quarters of 2021 was not satisfactory, with just 40% of planned activities implemented. The fact that the Committee was not working at full speed during this period resulted from the poor implementation of the Government Work Programme and delayed tabling of proposals for laws, as well as the stalled legislative activity of the Parliament, noted also in the European Commission’s latest Report on Montenegro.

The Committee on Political System, Judiciary and Administration adopted the Plan for enhanced oversight at its 24th meeting, ten months after establishment. On the occasion, the majority and the opposition expressed conflicting views on the possibilities for adequate discussions on the selected topics. There was no political will to exercise the oversight function prior to the mentioned initiative, as the Committee held only one control hearing and the opposition did not initiate any hearings during this period.

In order to improve the work of the Committee, it is necessary for opposition to initiate the exercise of the control role of Committee, to organize consultative hearings to consider relevant acts, and to strengthen the professional capacities of staff in the Committee Secretariat.