Posted on

On the work of inspectorates and the coordination mechanisms in the countries of the region

The cross-section of the work of seven inspectorates in Montenegro and the inspections coordination mechanisms in Croatia and Serbia were the topic of the second meeting we held within the framework of the project Inspections without protection: Allies in the fight against corruption.

On March 27, Institute Alternative organised the second meeting of representatives of inspection bodies, civil society, the judiciary and other institutions in charge of preventing corruption.

At the meeting, we presented an analysis of the work of seven inspection bodies whose work we monitor as part of the project. The analysis includes inspections that operate within the Administration of Inspection Affairs – Labour Inspectorate, Public Procurement Inspectorate and Health and Sanitary Inspectorate, and inspectorates that are part of the ministries (Administrative Inspectorate, Budget Inspectorate, State Property Inspectorate, Urbanism and Spatial Planning Inspectorate).

During the second part of the meeting, experts from Croatia and Serbia presented different work models and coordination of inspection bodies, especially from the aspect of strengthening integrity and anti-corruption mechanisms.

The aim of the meeting was to deepen the discussion about the current situation, the future direction of regulation of inspection supervision and adaptation of the legal framework to a more effective role of inspections in the fight against corruption.

The meeting was organised within the framework of the project Inspect to Protect: Turning Inspectorates Into Anti-Corruption Allies supported by the Embassy of the United States in Montenegro, the State Department’s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL).

Posted on

The Government changes at least 85 laws with one law: Political decision made, debate just a formality

The Government and the Ministry of Public Administration should undertake the reform of inspection oversight only after conducting an analysis of the state and results of the work of the Administration for Inspection Affairs and inspections operating within ministries.

The process of decentralising inspections is a political decision. This  is confirmed by the Minister of Public Administration, Marash Dukaj, in response to our question as to why this process was initiated even though it is not planned by the strategic framework of public administration reform. A minister, speaking at a round table on the Draft Law amending laws regulating inspection oversight, stated that the Ministry of Public Administration only implements conclusions made collectively by the Government.

To remind, in January 2024, the Government adopted an information on inspection oversight with conclusions on the need for reforming the existing system and establishing a decentralised model. Short deadlines were set based on inadequate analysis of the state. As a baseline, conclusions from the Efficiency Analysis of the Administration for Inspection Affairs from 2021 were considered, without assessing the work of inspections operating within ministries. Meanwhile, the Government has published a Draft Law amending laws containing provisions on inspection oversight.

Although the Draft Law amending laws regulating inspection oversight predicts changes to as many as 85 laws, the Ministry of Public Administration claims that it is merely terminological harmonisation rather than substantive decentralisation of inspections. They argue that this solution can fit into all models of inspection oversight.

At the roundtable on this Draft Law, held on Friday at the ReSPA center in Danilovgrad, the Ministry of Public Administration stated that public consultation is not necessary for this law, nor is it necessary to conduct a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) because the changes do not alter the essence of the laws.

It was also mentioned at the roundtable that the Draft does not contain all the provisions that need to be amended, as after publishing the draft, ministries submitted amendments to the Working Group, which speaks volumes about the haste in this process.

At the round table, we did not hear adequate arguments for why the Government insists on this rushed reform before conducting all appropriate analyses and proceeding with the reform of inspection oversight in Montenegro based on those conclusions. Representatives of the media and other non-governmental ogranisations were not present at the round table.

Changes in the functioning model of state bodies are justified, but they must be implemented based on analyses, strategically planned, and in line with existing strategic goals in the field of public administration reform. Therefore, we call on the Government and the Ministry of Public Administration to approach inspection reform only after conducting an analysis of the state and results of the work of the Administration for Inspection Affairs and inspections operating within ministries, and then plan further activities accordingly.

Dragana Jaćimović
Public Policy Researcher

Posted on

Changes to provisions on inspection oversight without public and clear arguments

Although the Ministry of Public Administration claimed in its official response to the Institute Alternative that it still does not know all the legal changes resulting from the abolition of the Administration for Inspection Affairs, in the meantime, it has initiated changes to 85 laws, without a clear explanation and violating public consultation procedures.

IA previously reacted to the hasty intention of the Government of Montenegro to abolish the Administration for Inspection Affairs, pointing out that it was not based on adequate analyses, the expose for the composition of the current Government, and the Public Administration Reform Strategy, and that it cannot be carried out without negative consequences within the specified short deadlines.

We also warned that the Government does not have the exact number of laws that need to be amended in order to decentralise inspections, even though their changes are required by February 15th.

In the meantime, following this process, we requested from the Ministry of Public Administration (MPA) a list of laws whose provisions need to be amended, in accordance with the Government’s conclusion. However, on March 12th, the MPA responded that not all ministries have provided the provisions that need to be changed, and those that have done so have done it partially, i.e., they have not indicated all the necessary changes.

Just three days later, the Ministry, in a procedure that constitutes a violation of the Law on Public Administration and by-laws on public consultation in the drafting of laws, publishes a Draft Law amending laws regulating inspection oversight and invites the public to a round table discussion.

Alongside the Draft Law, an impact analysis of the regulations has not been published, even though it implies a drastic reorganisation of inspection bodies, and raises other related issues, such as the “fate” and further use of the unified information system, which provides technical support for the implementation, monitoring of the effectiveness of inspection supervision, and risk analysis.

The accompanying explanation on one side is not enough to answer numerous practical questions and challenges. Additionally, the existing information about the process is filled with inaccuracies and contradictions. For example, the minister claimed on a public service Radio and Television of Montenegro show that over 170 laws need to be changed, while now the intention is to amend half that number.

Also, the claim that the current combined system of inspection supervision, according to which certain inspections are within ministries (the so-called sectoral principle) and the majority within a single body – the Administration for Inspection Affairs (the so-called functional principle), is unique in Europe is not accurate.  This, considering that, a combined approach to organising inspection services exists in Croatia, which is considered a good practice example in this area.

Considering the contradictory information about this process and the potential negative effects, we once again appeal to the Government and Ministry give up on violating laws and ignoring the public in making important decisions, which threatens to become a pattern of action for the 44th Government.

Attached is the decision of the Ministry of Public Administration on the request for free access to information IA.

                                                                                                Milena Muk
Institute Alternative

Posted on

Protest of 15 NGOs: Proposed amendments to the Criminal Code once again do not strengthen human rights protection in Montenegro

We protest because the recently published Draft Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of Montenegro again does not contain changes important for the protection of human rights.

This is the second time in three months that the Ministry of Justice has ignored recommendations of the Committee against Torture (CAT), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), and those contained in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) report for Montenegro, despite some of them dating back to 2014. Additionally, despite the announcement by the Minister of Justice, Andrej Milović, the possibility of introducing the criminal offense of Femicide has not been fully considered.

Ignoring these recommendations represents a failure in adequate protection of human rights and establishment of legal certainty, fails to meet the interim benchmarks for Chapter 23, and is not in line with the expected dynamics of reform processes that should bring the country closer to European Union membership.

Ministry of Justice concluded the Draft Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code after only two meetings of the working group, whose members were not consulted at all about the final version of the draft. This procedure raises serious doubts about the purposefulness of forming any working group and involving NGOs in the preparation of laws and strategies, i.e. decision-making processes. Additionally, the public discussion will last only 20 days – until 18 March – and without a roundtable discussion, which would enable broader discussions with relevant representatives of the Ministry of Justice.

It is particularly alarming that the Ministry of Justice explained the need for an accelerated procedure for the adoption of amendments by ‘work dynamics within Negotiating Chapter 23 and the fulfillment of Interim Measures’. However, out of five proposed amendments, only one has an impact on this chapter, while the others mainly relate to preventing money laundering and terrorist financing (Chapters 4 and 24).

On the other hand, for the process of improving fundamental rights, where Montenegro is required to align its legal framework with EU acquis and international standards, it was crucial to incorporate recommendations of, for example, the Committee Against Torture (CAT), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has not been done despite these bodies have been repeating them for years and non-governmental organisations continuously insist on them. The state is obliged to respect the recommendations of these bodies, as well as the obligations in the EU accession process.

Just 15 days ago, during the extraordinary visit of the CPT to Montenegro, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksa Bečić emphasised that ‘the Montenegrin government is currently taking concrete measures, such as amendments to the Criminal Code, aimed at strengthening the legal framework to combat torture and abuse.’ However, none of the Draft proposals refer to a fight against torture, although harmonising the definition of torture with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, tightening penalty ranges, and excluding statutes of limitations for all acts of torture were requested during public consultations for its preparation. Our NGOs will reiterate the proposals presented to the Ministry of Justice and through the Working Group for the amendment of the Criminal Code at the public discussion. We expect the Government to ensure the urgent adoption of all recommendations of international institutions and bodies and enable Montenegro to progress in the negotiations for accession to the European Union.

Human Rights Action (HRA)
Spektra Association
Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM)
Center for democratic transition (CDT)
Centre for Civic Education (CCE)
Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN CG)
Centre for Monitoring and Research (CeMI)
Centre for the Development of Non-Governmental Organizations (CRNVO)
Women’s Rights Center (WCR)
LGBTIQ Association Queer Montenegro
Institute Alternative
Montenegro Media Institute
Juventas
Women’s Safe House
Association of Youth with Disabilities of Montenegro