Parliamentary conclusions on reports of independent anticorruption bodies – advantages and weaknesses

Transparency – Serbia estimates that conclusions of Parliamentary Committees on annual independent bodies’ reports for 2012[1] properly reflect on main problems indicated by anticorruption bodies and possible solutions through Parliamentary and Governmental activities.

Thus, among other, we invite the Government to simplify and facilitate accomplishing and protection of rights before authority organs, to consider initiatives submitted by Ombudsman and proceeds on issued recommendations, to undertake measures for accomplishing of Commissioner’s obligatory decisions and for initiating procedures against officials who haven’t met their obligations, to propose the Law on Whistleblower Protection, changes of the Law on Anticorruption Agency, Free Access to Information of Public Importance and Ombudsman for more efficient accomplishing and protection of civil rights, as well as measures that would harmonize anticorruption regulations, to adopt by-law acts on secrecy of data and to provide fully conditions for independent bodies’ work.

However, as Transparency – Serbia indicated to several times[2], parliamentary conclusions so far haven’t lead to improvement since there is no mechanism for monitoring of their implementation. Due to that, not only that the problems indicated by anticorruption organs oftentimes in their reports, but also parliamentary conclusions, remained dead letter, as it was the case two years ago, while conclusions of the committees that refer to these reports for 2011 were not even considered before National Assembly. Transparency – Serbia gave specific recommendations for monitoring implementation of conclusions and accomplishing of supervisory role of National Assembly over Government’s activities.[3] Conclusions on which National Assembly will soon declare, contain certain elements of supervision when it comes to respecting recommendations of Supreme Audit Institution and Ombudsman[4], but not when it comes to problems in the work of Anticorruption Agency and Commissioner for Information of Public Importance. We expect that this omission will be removed with new Anticorruption Strategy, whose draft[5], envisages, as one of the most important preventive activities[6], monitoring of these conclusions’ implementation. However, Transparency – Serbia feels that chance to do it already, has been unreasonably missed.

Transparency – Serbia

Belgrade, 28 June 2013