Posted on

Eight Months from Initiative to Hearing: The Committee Finally Reviewed the SAI Report on CEDIS

Eight months after submitting the initiative, the Committee for Economy, Finance, and Budget finally conducted a control hearing of the head of the Montenegrin Electric Distribution System (CEDIS), the Montenegrin Electric Power Company (EPCG), the Minister of Energy, and members of the Senate of the State Audit Institution (SAI) on the financial state and operations of CEDIS in the context of SAI’s negative findings.

Although it was an opposition proposal, utilising the parliamentary mechanism of a minority initiative that cannot be blocked, it took five months just to formally decide on the matter, and then an additional three months to actually implement it.

During the debate on the initiative, submitted on February 14th of this year, there was no consensus on whether a vote was needed or if a date should automatically be scheduled and participants for the hearing determined. In the continuation of the 11th session on March 1st, it was decided to consult the Assembly’s Collegium, which would provide guidance on how to proceed with this initiative. The opposition had invoked Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament of Montenegro, which gave them the right to organise two control hearings during the regular session, independent of the political will of the parliamentary majority. This mechanism has been further weakened by this year’s amendments to the Rules of Procedure, which now allow for only one hearing each from both the opposition and the parliamentary majority, despite the fact that the majority controls all parliamentary committees.

The reconsideration of this initiative was delayed for another five months. Without mentioning the Collegium’s opinion, it was adopted on July 1st during the second continuation of the 11th session of the Committee. Then, at the 25th session held on July 16th, it was stated that they were awaiting responses from energy companies in order to schedule a hearing date. The following week, the Parliament’s website announced the date of the hearing—the session was scheduled for July 29th. In the following days, the session was canceled without explanation and without an announcement of when it would be rescheduled. Only on October 10th, a new date was posted on the Parliament’s website—October 15th.

We have repeatedly pointed out the inadequate consideration of so-called minority initiatives, a form of oversight mechanism that has been further limited by the amendments to the Rules of Procedure, adopted in May. The delay of this hearing is even more problematic given the Cooperation Protocol between the State Audit Institution (SAI) and the Parliament, which obliges the Parliament to hold hearings for audit subjects that received a negative opinion from the SAI. Therefore, this hearing was the Committee’s obligation, even without the opposition initiative, and represents the only hearing related to an audit report, even though nine audit reports with negative opinions were published this year.

We have previously highlighted the low success rate of opposition initiatives and the difficulties in implementing approved control hearings. The first session of this year was marked by the suppression of the Assembly’s oversight role, through questioning of oversight mechanisms and the rights of the parliamentary minority, as well as delays in implementing approved initiatives.

This infographic was prepared within the project „Parliament for Citizens: Accountability Redefined“ implemented by Institute Alternative and supported by the National Endowment for Democracy. The infographic is the sole responsiblity of its authors and does not reflect the views of the NED.

Posted on

IA’s Initiative For a Joint Hearing on Hold For Five Months

For nearly five months, we have been waiting for the parliamentary committees on economy and health to act on our initiative for holding a joint hearing on the topic of public procurement in healthcare. Despite the fact that the initiative, submitted by Institute Alternative on May 10th this year, was initially accepted by both parliamentary committees, the session has not yet been held, and there is no indication of when it will be scheduled or who will respond to the ongoing concerns about the dysfunction of the public procurement process for medicines due to the limited number of suppliers in Montenegro. We urge that a date and participants for the hearing be determined as soon as possible, which will open a broader discussion on this topic.

The initiative was first discussed at the 19th session of the Committee on Economy, Finance, and Budget on May 15th. On that occasion, it was stated that the MPs would familiarise themselves with our initiative and, in agreement with the Committee on Health, Labour, and Social Welfare, determine the manner of organising the session. Then, at the 25th session, two months later, it was unanimously supported that a thematic session be held based on our initiative, with the date to be determined later. During this period, the Committee on Health also gave its approval for a hearing on this issue.

Since the end of July, we have not received any feedback on whether the hearing will be scheduled and held. The issue of (non)scheduling and/or unnecessary delays has continuously followed the work of the 28th convocation of the Parliament, from the very beginning, which we have pointed out several times. By prolonging the scheduling of the hearing, the oversight function of the committees is being undermined, both because of the relevance of the topic that needs to be discussed and because, in this specific case, more than five months have passed without a clear date being set for the hearing.

More than a decade ago, a joint consultative hearing of these committees was held, but unfortunately, no conclusion was reached, nor was a joint report with recommendations for solving the problem issued. The importance of the topic is also highlighted by the fact that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its latest report on Montenegro, pointed to several issues in this area and emphasised the need to improve the efficiency of healthcare spending and limit pharmaceutical expenses, which in 2022 alone reached as much as 2.5% of GDP.

Institute Alternative calls on the Committee on Health, Labour, and Social Welfare and the Committee on Economy, Finance, and Budget to promptly define a date for the hearing, which will be followed by thorough preparation and a broad discussion, in order to articulate clear recommendations for changing policies, regulations, and practices in this area.

IA Team

Posted on

Parliamentary Dimension of the Berlin Process at the Bundestag

The German Bundestag hosted the event “Parliamentary Dimension of the Berlin Process,” held on October 9 in Berlin. The event, supported by the German Federal Foreign Office, was organised by the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” from Skopje, in cooperation with Institute Alternative and other partner organisations from the region.

The event brought together MPs from the parliaments of the Western Balkans (WB) and the Bundestag, parliamentary administration, as well as representatives from think tank organisations to discuss their role within the Berlin Process. Our Dragana Jaćimović participated in the conference.

Dr. Anton Hofreiter, Chair of the EU Affairs Committee in the Bundestag, opened the event by emphasising the crucial role of parliamentary diplomacy in promoting this process.

Key Sessions Focused on Regional Cooperation and Sustainability

In the subsequent sessions, parliamentarians addressed the current progress in implementing the Action Plans of the Common Regional Market and the Green Agenda, with a specific focus on digitalisation and decarbonisation. These discussions were guided by the findings of monitoring reports that assess the current level of implementation of these action plans, policy alignment, and capacity-building across the Western Balkans.

Credits: Deutscher Bundestag/Inga Haar

Our Dragana Jaćimović presented findings from the monitoring report related to activities in the field of the digital economy and cybersecurity, highlighting the need to strengthen regional cooperation, particularly in activities related to the digital economy. Monitoring report findings were also presented by Anamarija Velinovska (IDSCS), Juliana Bilbilaj (Institute for Political Studies), Violeta Haxholli (Kosovo Democratic Institute), and Marija Stefanović (CRTA).

“The monitoring reports provide valuable insights into the progress made by the Western Balkan countries in the areas of digitalization and decarbonization, as outlined in the Action Plans for the Common Regional Market and the Green Agenda. While there are significant disparities in the levels of implementation across these countries, many initiatives are inherently regional and require cooperative efforts. It is crucial that parliaments leverage this information for effective oversight and monitoring. In doing so, they can hold institutions accountable for their commitments and ensure progress in both digitalisation and decarbonisation,” researchers stated in a joint declaration.

Joint Meeting of the EU Committees and Western Balkan Delegations

The EU Affairs Committee at the Bundestag organized a joint meeting of the EU Committees from the Western Balkans (WB6) and the Bundestag during the Parliamentary Dimension of the Berlin Process event. Representatives of the EU Committees discussed two key topics: EU Enlargement and Reforms and  The Future of Regional Cooperation and Connectivity in the Western Balkans.

Credits: IDSCS

Exchange of Best Practices Among Parliamentary Staff

A special event for parliamentary staff was organised, focusing on strengthening the capacities of Western Balkan parliaments within the Berlin Process. Representatives from the Bundestag, Jutta Schneider-Schill, Bettina Creaton, and Felix Arndt, from the Bundestag and Bürgerräte, shared best practices on how parliamentary administrations can better support legislative reforms and monitor action plans related to the Berlin Process.

The conference is part of the project “Parliamentary Diplomacy: Regional Cooperation through Enhanced Parliamentary Dialogue,” supported by the German Federal Government, which aims to showcase the benefits of the Berlin Process by strengthening parliamentary diplomacy and utilizing oversight mechanisms by the parliaments of the Western Balkans.

In addition to the Institute Alternative, our project partners in the region are the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” (IDSCS) from Skopje, the Center for Research, Transparency, and Accountability (CRTA) from Belgrade, the Kosovo Democratic Institute (KDI) from Pristina, the Network of Progressive Initiatives (NPI) from Sarajevo, and the Institute for Political Studies (ISP) from Tirana.

Credits:Deutscher Bundestag/Inga Haar
Posted on

A Quarter of State-Owned Enterprises Hide Directors’ Contracts

Complex network of salaries, bonuses, and severance payments in other sectors

A quarter of state-owned enterprises did not respond to our request for access to the contracts of their executive directors, including some of the largest and most important public companies. The lack of transparency is further compounded by the failure to provide contract annexes.

The contracts we were able to obtain reveal varying practices regarding the definition of salaries, bonuses, and severance payments. The range of different calculation mechanisms, contractual definitions, and amounts indicates a web of non-transparent compensation, the absence of established standards for calculation, and the complexity of these roles.

To date, there have been no initiatives from the Government or Parliament to address these issues systematically and to permanently define standards for determining the elements of contracts for executive directors of state-owned enterprises.

Who is hiding the contracts?

As part of the comprehensive monitoring of these enterprises through the development of the portal “Whose Are Our Public Enterprises?”, we tried to obtain the contracts of the directors of state-owned companies. Out of 54 state-owned enterprises, we received contracts from 42.

The state-owned companies that did not provide the contracts of their directors include:
– Coal Mine,
– Airports,
– 13. jul Plantaže,
– Budvanska rivijera,
– H.T.P. Miločer,
– Montecargo,
– Montenegrin Shipping,
– EPCG-Solar Construction,
– Montepranzo,
– Zeta Energy,
– PIO DOO,
– ADA Sports Centre.

Some of these companies, such as Airports, Coal Mine, Plantaže, Budvanska rivijera, Montepranzo – Bokaprodukt, Zeta Energy, H.T.P Miločer, PIO DOO, EPCG-Solar Construction, and ADA Sports Centre, have been withholding not only the directors’ contracts but also all documentation regarding their operations for years—without any response from their boards of directors or the Government as the founder and owner.

A particular issue in terms of transparency of management compensation is the unavailability of contract annexes. Once signed, directors’ contracts are often amended, and annexes typically redefine salaries, work coefficients, and severance packages. In some cases, while we have access to the original contract, the annex has not been provided, or there is no confirmation that the contract has not been changed. Out of the 42 submitted contracts, 12 have signed annexes to their employment contracts, which were provided. Morsko dobro, Montenegroturist AD, and Ski Resorts of Montenegro did not respond to our inquiry about the existence of annexes.

How much do directors of state-owned companies earn?

Analysing the contracts we obtained, various amounts, measurement units, formulas, and coefficients are observed regarding the base salary of executive directors, as well as a network of additional and variable compensations. This reflects non-transparent compensation for executive directors of state-owned enterprises, the lack of established standards for calculation, and the complexity of these roles.

In most cases, directors’ base salaries are tied to the average salaries of employees in those enterprises. Typically, this involves three average salaries (EPCG, CEDIS, Regional Water Supply, Broadcasting Centre, Marina Bar, Morsko dobro…), with exceptions like the directors of CETI and the Montenegrin Solidarity Housing Construction Fund, who receive 2.5 times the average net salary in the company, and Bar Shipping with 2.2 average net salaries. In some cases, the basis for calculation is determined differently, such as using the average salary from the previous year or month (EPCG). In certain companies, the average net salary at the state level is used to determine the executive director’s salary (Montenegroturist – equal to one salary, BELEN – three average salaries, Castello Montenegro – from 1.5 to two average salaries).

On the other hand, the salaries of directors in many companies are calculated based on job complexity coefficients. These values vary across different enterprises, and in some cases, their calculation is determined by a collective agreement, while for others, it is determined by the Government (such as in the case of RTCG). The coefficient values vary significantly— the director of Luka Bar is calculated using a coefficient of 24, the director of the Regional Diving Centre 22, the director of RTCG 20.75, ŽPCG 20, ŽICG 19, National Parks 16.43, COTEE 13.3, and the director of the University Sports and Cultural Centre 7.6.

In a smaller number of companies, the director’s salary is set at a nominal amount (EPCG-Željezara Nikšić €2000, PROCON €1890, Monteput €1800, Institute for Black Metallurgy, Science and Technology Park €1600, IPC Tehnopolis €1678, Innovation Fund and Sveti Stefan Hotels €1500).

Bonuses

There is no uniform practice regarding the determination, calculation, payment conditions, or approval of bonuses.

According to the employment contracts we had access to, the directors of the Investment Development Fund (IRF), Morsko dobro, RTCG, the Innovation Fund, and the Science and Technology Park are entitled to bonuses. The executive director of RTCG can receive a bonus of up to two average net salaries in that public company. The directors of the IRF and Morsko dobro are entitled to bonuses “in accordance with positive business results.” The director of the Innovation Fund is entitled to cash rewards, but the contract does not specify the amount or conditions. For the director of the Science and Technology Park to receive a bonus, Government approval is required, which is not the case for other companies.

Severance payments and post-contract rights

Rights to severance compensation after premature termination of contracts for executive directors are also defined differently, while a smaller number of companies’ management contracts do not address severance or termination rights at all.

The amounts and methods of calculating severance vary. In most cases, it involves the right to a payout of 12 months’ gross salary, with both average and net salaries used as the measurement units.

In the event of dismissal, the director of the Electricity Company (Elektroprivreda) has the right to be reassigned to another position and to receive the salary he earned as a director for 12 months, after which he is entitled to two-thirds of his monthly salary until the end of his originally defined mandate. Similarly, the directors of CEDIS and Sveti Stefan Hotels have the right to be reassigned to a position with a minimum salary of two-thirds of their monthly salary until the end of their originally agreed term. In these cases, the contract does not specify whether the right to receive this amount applies if the former director declines reassignment.

In the event of dismissal, the directors of HTP Ulcinjska rivijera and IPC Tehnopolis will receive all remaining net salaries until the expiration of the originally set term, while the director of the Environmental Protection Fund is entitled to “two-thirds of six months’ salary.”

The severance payment for the director of Castello Montenegro is 12 of her average salaries, while the directors of Railway Transport and Railway Vehicle Maintenance are entitled to three average net salaries at the company level. The director of CETI has a severance payment of six net salaries, and the director of RTCG six gross salaries.

The Government is up next

It is necessary for the Government to establish clear guidelines through a new Law on Salaries of Public Sector Employees, which will regulate the manner of signing and amending contracts with executive directors of state-owned enterprises, set salary limits, introduce a unified calculation method, create bonus models that align with company performance, and address the issue of determining appropriate severance amounts in the event of contract termination.

Current legal solutions are incomplete and only apply to loss-making companies, which often ignore them, leading us to report over 60 state and local public enterprises to the Budget Inspectorate last year.

The current complex network of responsibilities and compensation calculations allows too much discretionary power to both boards of directors and the Government in arbitrarily determining coefficient values for individual enterprises. Neither the Government nor Parliament members have yet demonstrated a genuine willingness to address systemic problems in the operation of state-owned enterprises.

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 Institute Alternative and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union and/or the Ministry of Public Administration.

Posted on

Meeting of NGO representatives with the Supreme State Prosecutor

A meeting between the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office and representatives of non-governmental organisations was held today, with Dragana Jaćimović, a representative of Institute Alternative, participating.

The meeting was organised with the aim of establishing better, higher-quality, and more cooperative partnerships between the State Prosecutor’s Office and civil society.

Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković informed the NGO sector representatives about the activities carried out by the State Prosecutor’s Office over the past eight months, as well as the plans for the upcoming period.

During the meeting, the representative of Institute Alternative raised questions about the procedures for determining the accountability of prosecutors, the functionality of the automatic data exchange system (interoperability), the working group’s progress in regulating the security of judicial institutions, and how the training system for prosecutors, especially regarding new criminal offences, will be changed.

The participants expressed their readiness for continuous and effective communication and joint actions that will contribute to the improvement of the rule of law in Montenegro.

The meeting with the NGO representatives was also attended by Deputy Supreme State Prosecutor Jelena Đaletić, the heads of the Special, Higher, and Basic State Prosecutor’s Offices in Podgorica, Vladimir Novović, Lepa Medenica, Duško Milanović, and the Secretary of the Prosecutorial Council Secretariat, Hermin Šabotić.

Posted on

Half of Parliamentary Groups Do Not Submit Requests for Research Papers

Half of parliamentary groups did not approach the Research Centre of the Parliament of Montenegro with requests for research papers, and the Parliamentary Budget Office received no requests from MPs

During the current session of Parliament, half of the parliamentary groups have not approached the Research Centre of the Assembly with requests for research papers, while the Parliamentary Budget Office has not received a single request from MPs.

Although 37% of the bills introduced in the current 28th session have been proposed by MPs themselves, they rarely or never seek assistance from the analytical units available to them within the Assembly for the preparation of these bills.

Only half of the parliamentary groups, or their representatives in the Assembly, have approached the Parliamentary Institute – the Research Centre of the Assembly – with a request for the preparation of research papers since the beginning of the 28th session. So far, the Research Centre has received 24 requests, of which only 7 related to the preparation of bill proposals, while the others were aimed at preparing discussions. Since the beginning of the 28th session, no MPs have submitted requests to the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). On its own initiative, the PBO has produced reviews of key budget documents, bill proposals, and reports that were on the agenda of working bodies and plenary sessions.

The most requests came from the Parliamentary group of the Europe Now (13), SNP-CIVIS submitted 4 requests, Democrats of Montenegro submitted 2, and For the Future of Montenegro – New Serb Democracy submitted 3, while the clubs of the Bosniak Party and the Special MP Club each submitted 1 request. Out of a total of 12 clubs, 6 parliamentary groups have not approached the Research Centre since the beginning of the 28th session: the Democratic Party of Socialists, the Parliamentary Club of the Democratic Union of Albanians and the Croatian Civic Initiative, the Albanian Forum, the Social Democrats of Montenegro, the Civic Movement URA, and the Democratic People’s Party.

The Research Centre, upon MPs’ requests, has prepared papers on topics such as: comparisons of income levels in EU and Western Balkan countries, comparative practices of maritime laws, analyses of the legislation of regional countries regarding the election of Constitutional Court judges, comparisons of Forest Laws, and legal solutions for illegally acquired property that is not subject to criminal proceedings, a comparative review of the evolution of dual citizenship, etc.

Below, you can access research papers that have not yet reached the expiration date for public release, in accordance with MPs’ requests.

Requests for the preparation of research papers sent to the Research Center of the Assembly since the beginning of the 28th convocation

the date applicant topic description purpose format
7/2/2024 Bogdan Božović
(SNP-CIVIS)		 How are energy efficiency and mobility
shaping our urban future?		 Not specified To prepare
the discussion		 Short information
15/2/2024 Boris Pejović
(Europe now)		 Comparison of income levels in
EU and Western Balkan countries		 Cross-section for the end of 2021, 2022 and 2023,
related to the net amounts of the average salary and average pension.		 To prepare
the discussion		 Comparative review
26/2/2024 Zdenka Popović
(Democrats)		 The method of formalizing the Women’s Club
of Parliaments in EU countries and regions.		 How is the work of the Women’s
Club, or other bodies that have the same or similar scope of competence, organised?		 Not specified Comparative review
28/2/2024 Bogdan Božović
(SNP-CIVIS)		 Labor Law What is the maximum period of time that an employee can receive a
permanent solution? In neighboring countries and member countries of the EU?		 For the preparation of
amendment proposals		 Short information
3/3/2024 Vasilije Čarapić
(Europe now)		 Resolution condemning Israel’s crimes in Palestine How many EU member states have
supported a resolution of the same or similar type in their parliaments?		 Not specified Not specified
18/3/2024 Slađana Kaluđerović
(SNP-CIVIS)		 Property insurance of the energy
state company		 Comparative overview for the period 2019-2024:
insurance premium amounts, the number of offers for each year, the legal framework regarding the principle of territoriality and whether international tenders are allowed…		 For the preparation of
amendment proposals		 Study
19/3/2024 Boris Pejović
(Europe now)		 Comparative inflation rates in
EU and Western Balkan countries		 Overview for 2021, 2022 and 2023. To prepare the discussion Comparative review
22/3/2024 Tonci Janović
(Europe now)		 Comparative practice of the maritime
laws of Greece, Croatia and Slovenia		 Regulation of legal relations, protection and preservation…
With special reference to penal policy and compensation for anchoring ships and spilling waste water…		 For the preparation
of the bill		 Comparative review
25/3/2024 Nađa Laković
(Europe now)		 Migration in Montenegro International migration with reference to
Ukrainian refugees and their cohesion in the period 2021-2024.		 Discussion within
international delegations		 Short information with
an overview of statistical data
28/3/2024 Boris Pejović
(Europe now)		 Group of friendships with Montenegro Data related to the existence of friendship groups
with Montenegro (or with the states of WB) in the current convocations of the parliaments of other states. Data needed to improve cooperation with member countries of the Council of Europe.		 For the promotion of
international parliamentary cooperation through the friendship group		 Short information
3/4/2024 Ervin Ibrahimović
(Bosniak Party)		 Establishment of the Public Health Operations
Centre for Emergency Situations in Montenegro		 How many funds has the EU allocated to Montenegro for these
purposes, what stage has been reached in the implementation of this project, what does this project entail in Montenegro, what will be the specific effects of its establishment…		 Not specified Analysis
8/4/2024 Jevrosima Pejović
(Special MP Club)		 Analysis of the EU and the legislation of the countries of the region in
the part of the election of judges of the Constitutional Court		 Collect information in countries that are
demographically similar to Montenegro, an example of Scandinavian countries, as well as countries that in the past shared a similar arrangement as Montenegro, but went through the transition…		 For the preparation of amendments
and discussions		 Comparative review
23/4/2024 Jelena Božović
(ZBCG – NSD)		 Multiple questions for the needs of the Women’s Club of the Assembly What is the percentage of women and men employed in
shops who would be affected by the return of the working week? What is the practice in EU countries, what are the salaries compared to the average Montenegrin salary, what are the conditions in which women work…		 Not specified Not specified
24/04/2024 Nikola Rovčanin
(Democrats)		 Regulation of the field of games of chance Preparation of analysis and study on the experiences of EU countries and
regions in connection with the advertising of games of chance in the media and prescribed restrictions.		 Not specified Study
25/4/2024 Gordan Stojović
(Europe now)		 Comparative practice of legal regulation
of artificial intelligence in EU countries		 Comparative practice of legal regulation of artificial
intelligence in EU countries.		 To prepare the discussion Comparative analysis
25/4/2024 Gordan Stojović
(Europe now)		 Comparative analysis of demographic
stabilization at the level of EU and ION		 The issue of the demographic trend of emigration
in the mentioned countries, how those countries faced this problem and with what solutions.		 To prepare the discussion Comparative analysis
30/4/2024 Miodrag Laković
(Europe now)		 Legal solutions for illegally acquired
property for which no criminal proceedings are conducted		 Comparative practice (especially EU) for legal
solutions for illegally acquired property for which no criminal proceedings are conducted.		 For the bill and
discussion in the plenum		 Comparative review
13/5/2024 Gordan Stojović
(Europe now)		 Comparative analysis for ambassadors Analysis in the European Union for the
legal retirement limit and the age limit for
ambassadors and other senior diplomats.		 For the bill Comparative review
13/5/2024 Sladjana Kaluđerović
(SNP-CIVIS)		 Analysis of the banking market Interest rate for the period 2019-2024 on term
savings, cash, consumer, home loan…		 To prepare the discussion Short information
17/5/2024 Darko Dragović
(Europe now)		 Comparative analysis of the Law on Forests
of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia		 Comparative practice of the Law on Forests of Serbia,
Croatia and Slovenia.		 For the preparation of the law Comparative analysis
25/6/2024 Jelena Nedović
(Europe now)		 Analysis of changes to the CPC in relation to custody for
the period from 2009 to today		 Analysis of changes to the Criminal Procedure Act in
relation to detention, for the period from 2009 to today, i.e. what were all the changes. In 2015-2018, was there a provision on the duration of detention for a maximum of three years from the indictment to the verdict?		 To prepare the discussion Comparative review
17/7/2024 Andrija Mandić (NSD) Comparative practice of exercising the right
to dual citizenship		 The evolution of dual citizenship is visible both
theoretically, in the constitution of the right to dual citizenship, and in certain international legal instruments (European Convention on Citizenship of the Council of Europe), but also in the field of national legislation of the vast majority of EU member states. Analysis of the Montenegrin normative framework, realization of the right to dual citizenship
and comparative practice.		 The bill Comparative review,
study, review of statistical data
17/7/2024 Andrija Mandić (NSD) Comparative practice in the positions of
defectologist and speech therapist		 The position of special education teachers and speech therapists in the countries of the region and
EU countries, with an emphasis on their position in state institutions: kindergartens, schools and health centers, as well as the way they are regulated in the private sector. A brief analysis of legal solutions related to these two professions, if they exist in these countries, is also needed.		 The bill Comparative review,
study, review of statistical data, brief information
17/7/2024 Miodrag Laković
(Europe now)		 Comparative practice of using chemical products
for the treatment of agricultural crops in EU countries		 How is this area legally regulated in the EU? Since
there are no clearly defined legal restrictions in Montenegro, the use of chemical products in production depends on the manufacturer’s assessment.		 The bill Comparative analysis