TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction (PDF) download >>>
1. Chronology of events that preceded the adoption of the law (PDF) download >>>
2. The commission for conflict of interests (PDF) download >>>
3. Implementation of the law on conflict of interests (PDF) download >>>
4. Anex (PDF) download >>>
Chronology of events related to adoption of the Law on Conflict of Interest
Montenegro was the last country in the region that adopted a Law on the Conflict of Interests. The first section of this publication deals with the attempts to pass a law which was “lost” for two years, when neither the Government nor the Parliament was able to determin where the law was. When the law was finally „found“, it was determined by most of public officers who voted for it to be completely inadequate.
The subsequent attempts to improve the law by a governing parties’ parliamentarian working group, eventually failed due to consensus of governing and opposition parties to vote against it, which is extraordinarily rare in Montenegro.
This section also documents the prevarication of the ruling party in relation to drafting, discussing and passing the law, and the sometimes farcical attitudes and explanations offered by public officers in that process.
The Commission for Conflict of Interest
During the period from 2005 to 2007, MANS in its role as a watchdog to the work of the Commission for Conflict of Interest, collected data and lodged 136 appeals against public officials. Through this process MANS was able to monitor performance and shortcomings in the Commission’s work.
This section commences with data on previous work experience, official reports on property and income submitted by the members of the Commission. It is followed by description of authorities of the Commission, procedure for submitting initiatives for conflict of interest and statistical data.
The final part of this section consist of a case study describing the conflict faced by the president of the Commission, Slobodan Leković, who was at that time member of the local parliament of Podgorica municipality, in determining a resolution related to Miomir Mugoša, Mayor of Podgorica and president of the local parliament, who happened to be from the same party. The case study also highlights the absurd situation that legal procedure for appealing decision of the Commission, even in relation to one of its own members is to resubmit an appeal to the Commission itself, thus putting it in the unenviable position of being its own supervisor.
Second case study is presenting Administrative and Supreme Court decisions on the right to appeal decisions of the Commission.
