{"id":2856,"date":"2013-06-01T13:37:47","date_gmt":"2013-06-01T12:37:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mans.co.me\/en\/?p=2856"},"modified":"2013-06-04T13:56:14","modified_gmt":"2013-06-04T12:56:14","slug":"mans-questions-procedural-legality-of-government%e2%80%99s-attempt-to-increase-vat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/?p=2856","title":{"rendered":"MANS Questions Procedural Legality of Government\u2019s Attempt to Increase VAT"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>(Podgorica, 1 June 2013)<\/strong> \u2013 There is a reasonable suspicion that the amendments of the Government of Montenegro with respect to the Draft Law on Amending the Law on the Value Added Tax – submitted yesterday for the Assembly\u2019s consideration – where either falsified or established by grossly violating established procedures, including the government\u2019s own Rules of Procedure. In effect, the procedural conditions for the Assembly to express its opinions on the government\u2019s amendments relating to the VAT are absent, since the current procedure for doing so hasn\u2019t followed legal norms.<\/p>\n

\n

In the Government\u2019s own amendments, submitted to the Parliament, it is stated that they were adopted during a government session on 24 May 2013. However, in the Government\u2019s press release dated 24 May 2013, released after that meeting, it was only stated that the government had concluded that the VAT should be increased, but that the actual decision about this \u2013 how much and in what way the increase would happen \u2013 will be discussed in the following week, that is between 27 and 31 May, when there was no scheduled government meeting.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

Moreover, it was only on May 28th that the Ministry of Finance declared that the government had agreed to increase the VAT from 17 to 19%, i.e. four days after the government confirmed the amendments, which is impossible, clearly indicating that we\u2019re dealing with forgeries or gross procedural violations.<\/p>\n

\n

Finally, the government\u2019s own website contains materials from the meetings in question. The only agenda item that was taken up that day but that is lacking accompanying materials are precisely those relating to the controversial amendments, leaving substantial room for suspicions that someone was grossly violating procedures to push these amendments through within the government.<\/p>\n

\n

For this reason, we believe that there is no possibility, nor is there a legal basis for the Assembly to consider these government amendments. Instead the Assembly should immediately return the Draft Law to the government and demand additional information how the cabinet adopted the proposal in the first place, since it\u2019s clear that we\u2019re dealing with a case of procedural abuse.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

Furthermore, not only has the government manipulated the complete legal process, illegally inserting the controversial amendments into the Assembly\u2019s procedures, but also the government\u2019s very decision to amend the Law on the VAT is itself problematic.<\/p>\n

\n

Until now, it wasn\u2019t a common practice to change the scope and substance of the law through amendments that were initially proposed (especially considering the fact that for every amended law it is necessary to ensure conformity with the legal system of the European Union). If the bill was submitted in a way that drastically changes the law in question, then even this form is no longer valid, and there is no information as to whether the Law is truly in accordance with EU directives and other relevant international legal acts.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

When the government submitted its Draft Law on Amending the Law on the VAT in March 2013, it was only concerned with sanctions for violating the law. Two months later, the government has totally changed the substance of the law, since its primary function now is to ensure an increase of the VAT. On the other hand, the government has no information on whether or not such an increase is in line with EU requirements, precisely because it acted on the existing text of the Law, and thus wasn\u2019t responsible for submitting a new form on conformity.<\/p>\n

\n

On the other hand, if the Government went for a separate text for a law on changing the VAT rate, instead of resorting to an amendment, it would have to submit the new law to public debate as well as consult the Montenegrin public to see whether it agrees with the increase in order to cover the KAP\u2019s debts \u2013 i.e. those of Deripaska and other Russian tycoons gathered around the company. The government, from the very beginning, has been clearly aware that nobody in the country, form civil society to professional organizations, would not support a VAT increase, that is the introduction of a new \u2018KAP tax.\u2019 This is why the government has resorted to legal manipulation instead, seeking to avoid a public debate on the subject.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

As a result of all of the above, it is clear that Djukanovic, together with people that participated in this little \u2018effort\u2019 are not afraid of breaking the law and procedures, in order to protect the interests of individuals that were close to him, including Deripaska and other Russian tycoons gathered around the KAP. Precisely for this reason, the Assembly of Montenegro should recognize that these amendments were brought about in an illegal fashion, and that it should not allow one such illegal act be discussed in the parliament. The Parliament should seek and confirm concrete responsibility for the violation of the legal process by the government and manipulations that occurred on that occasion, in order to ensure that the legal process is never again violated and abused, since it is the basis of democracy, which should be the case in Montenegro as well.<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Podgorica, 1 June 2013) \u2013 There is a reasonable suspicion that the amendments of the Government of Montenegro with respect to the Draft Law on Amending the Law on the Value Added Tax – submitted yesterday for the Assembly\u2019s consideration – where either falsified or established by grossly violating established procedures, including the government\u2019s own<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2859,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,17,4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-2856","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-anti-corruption-policies","8":"category-press_releases","9":"category-transparency-conflict-of-interests"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2856\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}