How to use opening of the chapters for the fight against corruption

Transparency - Serbia (part of the Transparency International) believe that opening of chapters 23 and 24 of the accession negotiations with the EU could bring benefits to the citizens of Serbia in the future. Potential benefit is opening of a new channel for monitoring reforms. Will this benefit only be symbolic or significant depends on the will of Serbian authorities to make a difference in the fight against corruption and not only to formally fulfill activities from the action plan, as well as on determination of the EU to insist on the results of implementation of laws. First test of the existence of such will is going to be the willingness to substantially modify the existing incomplete and non-ambitious Action Plan for the Chapter 23.

Transparency - Serbia is pointing out that it would be idly to expect that the EU take more care on interests of citizens of Serbia than they themselves are willing to do, or that the EU can handle any task in the fight against corruption instead of domestic institutions. Therefore, we are alerting on the key risks that the negotiation process carries and on risks that have shown so far. First danger lies in the fact that some of the corruption problems are not clearly identified in analysis of the EU, nor the solutions for them have been formulated within the European integration. Namely, in the EU's requests which are putting before the candidate countries are limited with the existence of their own rules in some areas. Due to this, the Screening report of the EU and the Action Plan for the Chapter 23 do not recognize as a problem what is in Serbia one of the main channels for avoidance of the anti-corruption legislation implementation - conclusion of international agreements. In this connection is also the problem which is reflected in the preferences of our state authorities to prioritize solving of these issues that are included in the EU plans, at the expense of others, where there is no element of international supervision.

Second problem is that the measures from the action plan, even fully implemented by 2018, would not bring necessary level of changes, because they are not set sufficiently ambitious or because they lack accurate data for evaluating performance. Third problem is a matter of interpretation and in this regard, understandable and expected tendency of our state bodies to treat as if the problem is solved, when in the fact it is not. Indicators of the problem also are some assessments from the first report on the implementation of the Action Plan for Chapter 23. In this document, which covers the period until June 30, 2016, inter alia, it can be read that activities that should prevent "leakage of information on criminal proceedings in progress" are "successfully implementing" although there are countless examples that data on this are published in media or even such a data are coming from the highest officials; that the public prosecution "consider the reports of the Anti-Corruption Council from the point of possible criminal liability" and, on the other hand, it is not known that upon any of numerous reports of the Council which were published in the last four years, any criminal proceeding was initiated; that "the Government has so far acted in accordance" with the Assembly's conclusions on reports of the independent state bodies, although apparently not, and in 2016 these conclusions were not even adopted; that activity related to the appointment of civil servants on a competitive basis is "successfully implemented", although all deadlines have been breached long time ago; that certain activities are considered as successfully implemented only because "training was organized" or "report was submitted" , etc.

Transparency - Serbia also remind that previous cases of the EU accession have shown that countries were prepared to improve their laws, to establish institutions and to do something concrete in the fight against corruption, when the prospect of accession had been put in appearance. However, these efforts had not always been sincere and lasting, which is why the EU is now monitoring the success in the fight against corruption from the beginning to the end of the accession.

Transparency - Serbia on July 19, 2016