Posted on

European Youth – Addressing Digital Challenges

This study consists of eight policy briefs from the Western Balkans, Italy and Poland, titled:
    • Youth in Albania and the Online World: at the Crossroads of Freedom and Safety
    • Digital content: Why regulate? A view from Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Youth
    • Between regulations and freedom of speech: Kosovo’s youth acknowledge the importance of regulations and sanctions in digital space
    • Freedom of Expression on Social Media in Montenegro
    • Can You Hear Us from the Screen? The Youth from North Macedonian for Safe Internet Space
    • Regulating Interned in a Youth-friendly manner a Standpoint from Serbia
    • Internet, Freedom of Expression and Democracy in Europe – a Look from Italy
    • Internet, Freedom of Expression and Democracy in Europe – the Polish Perspective
This study represents a compilation of eight policy briefs created within the project “Make future together: the EU and the Western Balkans from the youth perspective”
Posted on

The Parliament passes the decisions, but what is the procedure like?

Analysis of the legislative function of the Parliament of Montenegro

This analysis addresses the legislative function of the Parliament of Montenegro. Between September 2020 and 22 September 2021, the share of the proposals for laws introduced to the Parliament by the MPs exceeded 50 per cent, surpassing, for the first time in the past ten years, the share of those introduced by the Government. This trend, however, was not coupled with detailed procedures that would have ensured an adequately informed process of proposing legislation, necessary data and public participation.

The MPs frequently stated that implementation of the proposals they introduced did not require any additional funding, although it was evident that new costs would arise in some cases (e.g., the establishment of the Talent Fund or new obligations of the Real Estate and State Assets Administration related to the restitution of olive orchards in the cove of Valdanos). The MPs did not elaborate the procedures for involving stakeholders and facilitating a broader debate on the proposed arrangements. On the other hand, the contents of the Government opinion to the legislative initiatives introduced by the MPs are not prescribed; hence, a “positive” opinion does not serve as an indicator of the quality of the initiative in question.

The amendments tabled by the MPs are accompanied by sketchy Explanatory Notes. The drastic changes of the spirit of the laws and the amendments to the regulations pertaining to labour and internal affairs, respectively, changed pensionable age and exposed the selection of the Police Director to direct political influence by requiring the Parliament’s affirmative opinion. Those situations warned and exposed the need for better explanations and broader debates on the substance of amendments. The MPs do not exercise their competences to review and conduct oversight over the regulatory impact analyses developed by the Government and accompanying the proposals for laws introduced by it. The potential of the Parliamentary Budget Office for carrying out more comprehensive financial analyses that should serve as the basis for the legislative role of the Parliament has not been tapped. The Parliamentary Service does not have a more proactive role in conducting the analyses that should precede major decisions made by the MPs.

Posted on

Parliamentary Oversight in Montenegro: A New Era or Just New Rules?

The new parliamentary majority in Montenegro, established after the August 2020 election following three decades of the rule of one dominant party, consists of three coalitions that differ in terms of the number of seats held and political profile. Despite the differences, once the new Parliament was inaugurated on 23 September 2020, all of the constituents of that majority pledged to enhance the role of the Parliament of Montenegro and the legal framework governing its operation. This brief overview of the key indicators of the MPs’ oversight function suggests that the new, advanced rules introduced under the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament still have not been translated into tangible steps forward in the practice of parliamentary oversight. Bearing in mind the generally accepted principles and good practices, we analyse parliamentary oversight through the lens of the following three key aspects:
  • Provision of the necessary information on the Government’s decisions and actions to the MPs;
  • Oversight activities of the MPs and the recommendations stemming from such activities;
  • Government feedback and follow-up on the Parliament’s conclusions and recommendations.
The analysis and recommendations presented here come as a result of the Institute Alternative’s continuous monitoring of the work of the Parliament and its working bodies which relied on the publicly available sources. The data presented here refer to the first year of the term of the 27th Parliament of Montenegro.
Posted on

European Commission’s recommendations to be translated into a concrete action plan

Recommendations and priorities noted in the European Commission’s Report on Montenegro, the Government must translate into a concrete action plan, which would outline a clear responsibility of each member of the Government, as well as of other institutions, either for successes or failures in its implementation.

Recently published Report of the European Commission on Montenegro has showed that the process of European integration stagnated in the last year. Tapping in place is the best reflected in the fact that in many as 30 of the 33 chapters, only “limited progress“ has been identified. No backsliding has been identified in any area this year either, although the Functioning of Judiciary, as a special aspect under Chapter 23, has been assessed worse than in the last year (with no progress compared to limited progress).

Such assessment should be an alarm to the current Government that it is necessary to have more serious approach to the messages stated in this Report, and to concretise the obligations presented to us on our European path. In addition, it is necessary that all political stakeholders show a will for a constructive dialogue about main appointments in judiciary, given the fact that it is the key priority on which depends progress in the negotiations.

The best and most efficient way for the Government is to articulate the European Commission’s recommendations into a concrete action-oriented plan of the Government, the Parliament and other responsible independent institutions. The Plan must clearly outline the tasks, deadlines, but also responsibility either for successes or failures of individual departments and people who manage them. The revised methodology for accession process also predicts intergovernmental conferences after publishing annual reports, in order to set priorities for the next year and take corrective measures in relation to the situation identified in the reports. This is why the Government should show proactivity and readiness to address priorities, and what is equally important, to share these plans with Montenegrin citizens, who strongly support Montenegro’s accession to the European Union (EU).

As a strong statement of political will and devotion to the EU integration process, it is especially significant that the Government relies on the state budget for implementation of the Plan’s priority activities, without waiting for donors and foreign support and funds.

In addition to showing political will, an additional argument is the fact that one of the problems characteristic for the accession process so far has been the lack of information on coordination, contracting and implementation of projects implemented by the Government or state institutions which are financed from the pre-accession funds of the European Union. Hiding the defined obligations from such programs, as well as information about their implementation, also makes it impossible to hold accountable the heads of institutions that use the EU funds. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the transparency of the EU funding by preparing and publishing the Government’s special reports on the implementation of these projects, thus enabling the public to monitor the dynamics of the implementation of these projects.

Once a month, the Government should prepare reports on the implementation of the action plan, i.e. recommendations from EC report, and inform the public about the results. Moreover, at each session of the Government, one of the key, if not the first item on the agenda, should be the ministers’ presentation of the fulfillment of obligations outlined in the plan. This is the only way to ensure continuous scrutiny and monitoring of the implementation of the plan, both by the Government, the Parliament and the general public, which would, eventually, lead to concrete results.

Such plan, besides concretising obligations and centralising responsibility, should also serve as a kind of self-assessment of the Government’s work and all their members, while remaining in theirs positions would strongly depend on the successful implementation of the obligations from the plan.

We remind you that the current mechanisms for monitoring the fulfilment of obligations from the European agenda have not proved to be particularly effective. Report on the implementation of the Government’s Working Program is lacking, and according to the data we collected, 63% of the legal proposals planned for the first three quarters of this year the Government did not send to the parliamentary procedure by mid-October. On the other side, semi-annual reports on overall activities within the integration process which the Government prepares and sends to the Parliament are not focused on the main identified problems and EC’s annual recommendations, (from one yearly report to another). These reports only address the obligations from the Accession Program, which is a longer-term Government document (currently in force 2021-2023). It only reports on what has been implemented, but does not show what has not been done, while it also contains information on peer review missions, meetings of state officials with EU officials, as well as other information that diverts focus from the obligations which the county failed to implement.

 Awareness of possible dismissal due to non-delivery of results would create additional pressure and prevent the neglect of Montenegro’s European obligations by certain departments, which was also recognised as a problem in the recently published Report of the European Commission.

Stevo Muk
President of the Managing Board

Posted on

The Report of European Commission on Montenegro

Another Year of ”Tapping in Place”

The European Commission’s  report confirmed that the much needed radical reforms are a victim of political cleavages; the messages should be understood as a strong call for all stakeholders, especially political parties, to dedicate themselves to the tasks of European integration.

If the assessments from the report are translated to a numerical scale from 1 to 5, Montenegro’ s results are once again limited: the average score of progress this year is the lowest in the last six years and is 3.03 (compared to 3.18 last year). On the other hand, the assessment of overall state of play or preparedness is the best so far and amounts to 3.11 (compared to 3.08 last year).

European Commission’s methodology from 2015 includes two levels of assessment – ‘’state of play’’ and ‘’assessment of progress’’. The first level refers to assessing the overall situation in the areas covered by chapters, while the second level is focused on a separate assessment of the progress made over the past 12 months, ie. since the publication of the previous report. Possible estimates for the state of play are “early stage, some level of preparation, moderately prepared, good level of preparation and well advanced”. “Backsliding” is the lowest grade that can be obtained for assessment of progress. It is followed by “no progress, some/limited progress, good progress and significant progress”.

Tapping in place, when it comes to the negotiations between Montenegro and the EU, is the best reflected in the fact that in as many as 30 of the 33 chapters, only “limited progress” has been identified. No backsliding has been identified in any area this year either, although the Functioning of Judiciary, as a special aspect under Chapter 23, has been assessed worse than in the last year (with no progress compared to limited progress). On the other hand, freedom of expression received a slightly better rating (limited progress compared to last year’s rating of stagnation).

In the report, the European Commission highlighted the administrative capacity gap following the change of government, especially in terms of managing the negotiation process. The IA has also recently warned that slow process of reorganisation, poor workforce planning and the introduction of unregulated competitions for acting officials, managerial positions in public administration are further destabilised, in the context in which the Government itself in February this year pointed out that ’’significant outflow of expert staff from negotiating structures may  negatively affect the dynamics of meeting the obligations of the negotiation process.”

Despite the announcements of a new enlargement methodology, and merging of chapters into the so-called clusters, the report is not significantly different in quality and content, comparing to the previous years. In certain sections, there is a greater emphasis on the political preconditions of the necessary reforms, and thus, the report also contains the level of political analysis along with the usual assessments of technical criteria and benchmarks.

However, the situation on the ground in Montenegro and other EU Enlargement countries has exceeded the framework of usual annual reports and enlargement methodology long time ago. Therefore, the IA has supported recommendations of other organisations from the region within the TEN network (Think for Europe) and of Brussels-based CEPS for the introduction of measures of the so-called early integration or phased membership. This new approach would also entail the changes of assessment of all areas, especially of the rule of law.

Posted on

Contract of the director of “ToMontenegro” published – An important step towards transparency

We welcome the decision of the Board of directors of ToMontenegro to disclose the managerial  contract of its executive director, after their answer to our free access to information request was first delayed and then rejected.

Contract can be found on our site: “Whose are our public companies“

Beside the salary of €4 400 and reimbursement up to €1 000 for apartment rent, executive director already earned €50 000 in bonuses. The company already started with commercial flights (condition for one-off bonus) and transported 60 000 passengers by September (condition for one of the annual bonuses). In case of contract termination, director will have the right to 24 average net salaries, which amounts to over 105 thousand euros.

Reimbursement policy of the management of state-owned enterprises has to be regulated more precisely than it is now the case with the Law on Salaries of Public Sector Employees. Another issue is severance pay of executive directors, which currently has no clear limits or prescribed critera.

It is important that management earnings are transparent and precise information about them available to the public. Therefore, we welcome publishing of the contract and we hope that the managements of other state-owned enterprises who still hide the contracts of directors will follow this example.