| SERBIA | |
2006 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The Inspectorate General, established as the internal control department of the police, has reported difficulties in functioning, notably due to the lack of cooperation within the police as well as in relation to the restrictions to the access to information concerning complaints filed against police officials. [1] |
| GRECO
There is a lack of public confidence in some of the authorities and in their work. The GET’s perception was based on the information provided that corrupt activities were most frequent among judges and prosecutors, within municipalities, customs, police and the health care system. [2] | |
2007 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
There are still concerns about undue political interference in the work of the police and the level of transparency.[3]
Cases of police officers involved in organized crime and corruption have been reported.[4] |
| COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Press reports have mentioned several instances of action taken by the Ministry of the Interior and/or courts against misconduct, criminal actions or corruption of police officials.[5] | |
| BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA | |
2007 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Petty and serious corruption within the police remains widespread.[6] |
| ALBANIA | |
2005 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Significant progress has also been made in the fight against corruption within the police, following the launch in early 2004 of the “Order within Order” initiative in the Ministry of Public Order. [7]
Significant progress has been made in the fight against corruption within the police, following the launch in early 2004 of the “Order within Order” reform and the adoption of several legal amendments aimed at enhancing the internal control powers of the police. These measures have resulted in the dismissal of a large number police officers (304 during the reporting period) and in a dramatic increase in the number of criminal proceedings against police officers brought by the police to the prosecutor’s office (323 in 2004 compared to 190 in 2003), one third of which involved high- or middle-ranking officials.[8]
Overall, the Albanian State Police has made progress in adopting a potentially more effective structure with improved internal regulation mechanisms and better results in fighting internal corruption. However, Albania has considerable room for improvement in legislation, management, infrastructure and international co-operation related to police work.[9]
There has been some progress in enhancing the effectiveness of the Albanian state police, with the strengthening of departments dealing with organised crime and corruption, and prosecution and dismissal of increased numbers of often senior police officers for corruption.[10]
Some progress has been made in strengthening Albania’s capacity to fight money laundering, in improving the investigative skills of the Albanian State Police and in fighting corruption within police ranks.[11] |
2007 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Investigation and prosecution of cases of corruption in the police and the judiciary are not yet sufficiently determined. [12] |
| MACEDONIA | |
2005 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
In the Ministry of Interior a professional standards unit was created in 2003 to investigate, among other things, corruption cases in the police. It has produced its first results: police officers have been dismissed, disciplinary measures have been imposed and some criminal charges have been brought against police officers, as well as against judges and court officers.[13]
A professional standards unit was created in the Ministry of Interior in 2003 to investigate corruption cases in the police and in 2005 new Departments on Organised Crime and Corruption were set up within the Ministry of Interior and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. [14] |
2006 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Positive developments have taken place in the Ministry of Interior’s sector for internal control and professional standards. These have contributed towards strengthening its ability to investigate charges of police abuse and corruption.[15]
One police officer has been sentenced for receiving bribe and one criminal procedure has been opened against a custom officer. Further capacity to investigate and prosecute corruption is needed.[16]
As regards prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, positive developments occurred in the Ministry of Interior’s sector for internal control and professional standards, which worked towards strengthening its ability to investigate charges of police abuse and corruption.[17] |
2007 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
An increased number of police, customs officers, tax officials, judges and prosecutors have faced disciplinary measures for bribery and abuse of office. In some cases this has resulted in dismissals and prison sentences.[18] |
| BULGARIA | |
2004 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
As regards the fight against corruption, the Ministry of Interior adopted a code of ethics for police officers in October 2003.[19]
As regards corruption within the ranks of the traffic and border police, the measures include efforts to improve the efficiency of internal investigation by making it easier for complainants to identify police officers, and an extensive public-awareness campaign. Information posters at the border posts and booklets distributed to the public in Bulgarian, English and Turkish indicate that it is possible to complain by calling a 24hr hotline or lodging a written complaint at any border post or police station. According to the figures provided by the Ministry of Interior for 2003, investigations were opened against 307 officials and sanctions were imposed on 172 officials. In the period January-April 2004, investigations were opened against 80 officials and sanctions were imposed on 57 officials. [20]
Recent reports indicate that the current arrangements for dealing with recruitment, promotion and demotion of police officers are non-transparent and that a new human resources management approach is urgently needed.[21]
The Ministry of Interior has made considerable efforts to fight corruption in its agencies. However, it is a point of concern that internal disciplinary procedures against police officers accused of corruption tend to be very long, non-transparent and prone to irregularities and procedural errors. A clear, transparent, objective way of dealing with those cases should be established as a matter of priority. [22] |
2005 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The overall organisation and intra-departmental control of the prevention and detection of acts of corruption at the Ministry of the Interior has been further improved by refining the mechanism for receiving, checking and taking action on information concerning corruption amongst Ministry of the Interior officials. Integrity tests are carried out on a regular basis. The training curricula of the Police Academy for the academic year 2004-2005 include issues related to the prevention of internal corruption. In the period October 2004 – March 2005, 38 Ministry of the Interior officials were dismissed on disciplinary grounds.[23] |
2006 | EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Within the border police arrangements have been made to reduce the risk of corruption through random changes in working hours and places of work. The vetting of staff as well as training and the introduction of preventive measures and good practice are underway within the Ministry of the Interior.[24]
Additional steps are needed to prevent corruption at border crossing points, including awareness campaigns for truck drivers and frequent users. Border crossing point arrangements need further revision in order to enhance efficiency and accelerate procedures.[25]
In July 2006, the principle ‘one desk payment’ has been introduced as a pilot project at the Lesovo BCP on the Bulgarian- Turkish border, but this now needs to extended throughout the borders of Bulgaria to reduce the risk of corrupt practices at the border.[26] |
[1] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document, Serbia 2006 Progress Report, {COM(2006) 649 final}, Brussels, 8.11.2006 SEC(2006) 1389, European standards, Justice, freedom and security, Police, p.37
[2] Group of States Against Corruption, Joint First and Second Evaluation Rounds, Evaluation Report on the Republic of Serbia, Adopted by GRECO at its 29th Plenary Meeting Strasbourg, 19-23 June 2006, Overview of anti-corruption policy in the republic of Serbia, Analysis, p.7
[3] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document Serbia 2007 Progress Report, {COM(2007) 663 final}, Brussels, 6.11.2007 SEC(2007) 1435, European standards, Justice, freedom and security, Police, p.42
[4] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document Serbia 2007 Progress Report, {COM(2007) 663 final}, Brussels, 6.11.2007 SEC(2007) 1435, European standards, Justice, freedom and security, Fighting organised crime and terrorism, p.43
[5] Council of Europe, SG/Inf (2007) 05 final, Serbia: Compliance with obligations and commitments and implementation of the post-accession co-operation programme, 2nd Report: Update on developments (November 2006 – June 2007), 18 July 2007, Rule of Law, Police and prisons, p.10
[6] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007 Progress Report {COM(2007) 663 final}, Brussels, 6.11.2007 SEC(2007) 1430, European standards, Justice, freedom and security, Police , p.52
[7] European Commission, Albania 2005 Progress Report {COM (2005) 561 final}, Brussels, 9 November 2005, SEC (2005) 1421, Political situation, Democracy and rule of law, Anti-corruption policy, p.16
[8] European Commission, Albania 2005 Progress Report {COM (2005) 561 final}, Brussels, 9 November 2005, SEC (2005) 1421, European standards, Justice, freedom and security, Police, p.60
[9] Ibid, p.61
[10] European Commission, Albania 2005 Progress Report {COM (2005) 561 final}, Brussels, 9 November 2005, SEC (2005) 1421, European standards , General evaluation, p.64
[11] European Commission, Albania 2005 Progress Report {COM (2005) 561 final}, Brussels, 9 November 2005, SEC (2005) 1421, European partnership: overall assessment, p. 68
[12] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document, Albania 2007 Progress Report , {COM(2007) 663 final, Brussels, 6.11.2007, SEC(2007) 1429, European standards, Justice, freedom and security, Fighting organised crime , p. 48 – 49
[13] Commission of the European Communities, Analytical Report for the Opinion on the application from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for EU membership {COM (2005) 562 final}, Brussels, 9 November 2005 SEC (2005) 1425, Political criteria, Democracy and the rule of law, Political criteria, Democracy and the rule of law, Anti-corruption policy, p. 23
[14] Commission of the European Communities, Analytical Report for the Opinion on the application from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for EU membership {COM (2005) 562 final}, Brussels, 9 November 2005 SEC (2005) 1425, Ability to assume the obligations of membership, Chapters of the acquis, Judiciary and fundamental rights, Anti-corruption policy and measures, p. 110
[15] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, {COM (2006) 649 final}, Brussels, 08.11.2006 SEC (2006)1387, Political criteria, Human rights and the protection of minorities, Civil and political rights, p.12
[16] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2006 Progress Report, {COM (2006) 649 final}, Brussels, 08.11.2006 SEC (2006)1387, Ability to assume the obligations of membership, Judiciary and fundamental rights, p.45
[17] Ibid, p.46
[18] Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2007, Progress Report, {COM(2007) 663 final} Brussels, 6.11.2007 SEC(2007) 1432, Ability to assume the obligations of membership, Judiciary and fundamental rights, p. 51
[19] Commission of the European Communities, 2004 Regular Report on Bulgaria’s Progress Towards Accession, {COM(2004) 657 final}, Brussels, 6.10.2004 SEC(2004) 1199, The chapters of the acquis, Co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs, Progress since the last Regular Report, p.118
[20] Commission of the European Communities, 2004 Regular Report on Bulgaria’s Progress Towards Accession, {COM(2004) 657 final}, Brussels, 6.10.2004 SEC(2004) 1199, The chapters of the acquis, Co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs, Progress since the last Regular Report, p.118
[21] Commission of the European Communities, 2004 Regular Report on Bulgaria’s Progress Towards Accession, {COM(2004) 657 final}, Brussels, 6.10.2004 SEC(2004) 1199, The chapters of the acquis, Co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs, Overall assessment, p.121
[22] Ibid, p.122
[23] European Commission, Bulgaria 2005 Comprehensive Monitoring Report, {COM (2005) 534 final}, Brussels, 25 October 2005 SEC (2005) 1352, Political criteria, Implementation of recommendations for improvements, Anti-corruption measures, p. 11 – 12
[24] Commission of the European Communities, Communication From the Commission, Monitoring report on the state of preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania, Brussels, 26.9.2006 COM(2006) 549 final, The issues highlighted in the conclusion of the may 2006 report which needed further action, Political criteria, Justice system, p.16
[25] Commission of the European Communities, Communication From the Commission, Monitoring report on the state of preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania, Brussels, 26.9.2006 COM(2006) 549 final, The issues highlighted in the conclusion of the may 2006 report which needed further action, Political criteria, Anti-corruption measures, p.17
[26] Commission of the European Communities, Communication From the Commission, Monitoring report on the state of preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania, Brussels, 26.9.2006 COM(2006) 549 final, Other issues which needed further progress in MAY 2006, Acquis criteria, Areas in which further progress is still needed, Cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, p.31