Posted on

IA proposals for the improvement of the Work Plan of the Anti-Corruption Committee

After the meeting with the President of the Anti-Corruption Committee, today we have submitted written proposals for the improvement of the Work Plan of this Committee for 2024.

-We emphasised the importance of utilising the mechanism for reviewing quarterly reports of Agency for Prevention of Corruption, as well as periodic review of the results of the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office and the Special State Prosecutor’s Office in the fight against corruption.
-It is necessary for the Parliament to institutionalise the consideration of citizen’s petitions, as well as enhance its legislative function by independently or jointl reviewing draft laws that are significant for the overall fight against corruption.
-Since 2014, Montenegro has lacked a strategic document in the field of anti-corruption, and action plans for Chapters 23 and 24 were formulated over a decade ago. Therefore, is it particularly important for the Committe to take a more active role in the long-awaited development of the Anti-Corruption Strategy.
-The Committee should consider the final report and recommendations based on the evaluation of the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), especially considering that is the only legally binding international anti-corruption multilateral treaty.
-The Committee should organise a consultative hearing to discuss the previous results of the work of the Anti-Corruption Department within the Ministry of the Interior, established in 2022. Among the responsibilities of this unit is, among other, monitoring the work within the ministry, including monitoring the assets, income, and lifestyle of police officers.
-Considering the underestimated role of inspections in preventing corruption and fighting against it, there is room for a more active role of the Committee in relation to processes in this area.

IA Team

Posted on

Public Enterprises: A Task for Budgetary Inspection

On July 21, 2023, Institute Alternative submitted an initiative for the inspection of companies owned by the state and local government units regarding the violation of the Law on Salaries of Employees in the Public Sector.

Article 10 of the Law on Salaries of Employees in the Public Sector stipulates that companies owned by the state and local government units that incurred a loss in the previous year are required to reduce the total salary fund by 10% in the first year and an additional 5% in the following calendar year.

Based on publicly available data (financial reports of these enterprises available in the public records of the Revenue and Customs Administration), it is clear that some companies did not comply with this provision of the law, did not reduce the salary fund, and in some cases, significantly increased it. This applies to 21 companies at the central level and 48 companies at the local level (owned and/or founded by the local government).

Our initiative was included in the Budgetary inspection oversight plan that was adopted in January 2024 and officially published on the website of the Government of Montenegro on February 7, 2024. The work plan includes an overview of the subjects of supervision, areas of supervision, the time period of the oversight, and the schedule of the inspection for each inspector individually. In addition to planned regular oversights, Budgetary inspection will also conduct extraordinary inspections as ordered by the minister and based on reports, initiatives, complaints, and requests for inspection.

List of companies where violations of Article 10 of the Law on Salaries of Employees in the Public Sector have been registered.

Text was created within the project “Civil Society for Healthy, Effective, Sustainable, and Transparent Public Enterprises (BEST SOEs),” supported by the European Union, with co-financing from the Ministry of Public Administration. The content of the text is the sole responsibility of the Institute Alternative and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union and/or the Ministry of Public Administration.



Posted on

IA representatives met with the President of the Anti-Corruption Committee

Milena Muk and Bojana Pravilović, representatives of Institute Alternative, presented proposals for improving the work of the Anti-Coruption Committee to the President of this working body, Jevto Eraković, at today’s meeting.

For years, Institute Alternative has been monitoring the work of the Parliament and its committees, and on this occasion, we have pointed out some of our recommendations that we advocate regarding the Anti-Corruption Committee, such as: renewing the initiated practice of reviewing quarterly reports on the work of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption, as well as utilising the opportunity for periodic review of the results of the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office and the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, in the fight against corruption in accordance with the amendments to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office from 2021.

We also emphasised the need for the Anti-Corruption Committee to take a more active role in relation to the long-awaited development of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, as well as the consideration of reports and recommendations based on the evaluation of the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

Considering the importance of the anti-corruption role of inspections, we announced that Institute Alternative will soon publish the results of our research on the effects of inspection services in high-risk corruption areas, which could be a stimulus for more effective parliamentary oversight in that area. We also reminded that the Anti-Corruption Unit has been active within the Ministry of the Interior for over a year, the results of which both the Parliament and the Committee can and should more proactively engage in considering.

Additionally, based on our recommendations, as well as the criticisms stated in the European Commission’s progress reports for Montenegro, we highlighted the need for the Parliament to institutionalise the consideration of petitions within Committees. Citizens have access to a form for submitting petitions, but there is a lack of definition of procedures and deadlines within which committees must consider them and provide a response.

IA Team