Purpose of this publication is to present the results of implementation of anti-corruption reforms and the role of the Parliament of Montenegro in that process and to present the best practices of anti-corruption bodies in the region.
In August 2006 the Government of Montenegro adopted the Action Plan against corruption and organized crime which defines activities, holders and deadlines for the realization of the reforms. In mid February 2007 it appointed the National Commission for monitoring of implementation of this document. At the end of 2009 the deadline for implementation of the Action Plan expired and the National Commission finished its mandate.
First Chapter of this publication documents that the National Commission is structured so that its members evaluate their own results and this is one of the reasons why its reports do not correspond with the actual state of facts. This Chapter presents data on the activities of the Commission within the period of three years of its work which clearly shows that the representative of MANS was the most active member of that body. Case studies presented in this Chapter show that the members of the Commission cannot access documents they need in order to perform quality monitoring of the implementation even though the rights and duties come from the documents which regulate work of the Commission.
Second Chapter shows that state institutions have fully implemented only a half of the reforms planned in the Action Plan. Data show that most of the activities establishing the law and institutional infrastructure as well as building the administrative capacities have been implemented, but those reforms have given no specific results in practice.
Third Chapter presents three case studies which show that there are no results in the fight against corruption and organized crime at the highest levels. First case study talks about activities of the criminal prosecution bodies and adjudication in fight against the international smuggling of cocaine which resulted with court verdicts for one thousand lesser quantity of drugs that the one sequestered. The second case study shows that the former President of the Supreme Court was not the subject of investigation for embezzlement of almost one quarter of a million euros in that institution even though he was actually in charge of giving financial orders in this institution. The last case study presents the excuses that Montenegrin prosecution uses in order not to deal with investigations of organized crime in privatization.
The fourth part of the publication shows that the Parliament of Montenegro is not ready to implement the Resolution on the fight against corruption and organized crime adopted unanimously neither to use control mechanisms it has at disposal in order to monitor the work of executive authority particularly in the field of fight against corruption and organized crime.
The last part of the publication gives an overview of experiences of the countries in the region and shows that Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Slovenia have a much better institutional framework for monitoring of reforms in the area of fight against corruption and organized crime than Montenegro. A comparative analysis shows that only Montenegrin Parliament has appointed a special body for monitoring of anti-corruption reforms and only our National Commission has no mandate to act upon specific reports that indicated deficiencies in the work of state bodies.
Tackling corruption for EU integration 3 (PDF) download
