Repeated recommendations and unmentioned problems
Evaluation on fight against corruption from the report of the European Commission for 2014
Transparency – Serbia (accredited chapter of Transparency International) emphasizes that the Progress Report for Serbia[1], published by the European Commission identifies many important problems and recommendations related to fight against corruption, that were expressed in previous years as well, to which, prior to EU organs, Serbian institutions and our organization pointed out to, remain, although it was possible to resolve it. Therefore, this report, besides asserting certain improvements, should be rather treated as another reminder to the Government and citizens of Serbia that current anticorruption measures are not sufficient. Reason more for such understanding of Brussels’ document is the fact that certain processes that increase significantly risk of corruption were not comprehended with this report, like poor implementation of the Law on Public Enterprises and avoiding competition and transparency principles, set in national legal framework through implementation of interstate agreements. Besides that, EC itself indicates to deterioration of situation in certain areas.
Among repeated problems this year's report states: insufficient activities of Parliament and Government in resolving of problems indicated by independent state organs (e.g. Anticorruption Agency, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance); necessity of full control of the reports on party financing and need to change that Law; „insufficiently developed“ public debates, adoption of laws without consideration of financial effects and delay of by-law acts; insufficient independency and efficiency of judiciary; insufficient results in control of officials' property reports; problems of economy with issuing licenses and weak mechanisms of internal control in public sector. Estimation on insufficient number of indictments and especially verdicts for high level corruption is reaffirmed, need for proactive proceeding in revealing corruption, as well as intolerable cases of so called „leaking“ of police information towards media, which „has to be investigated“.
European Commission praises „existence of strong political impetus for fight against corruption“ and establishing of „inter-ministry coordination mechanism“, (i.e., governmental coordination body whose powers are unclear[2]), but at the same time indicates that impetus is still missing in implementation of Anticorruption Strategy from 2013 („several measures have been postponed“, „monitoring and coordination mechanisms for implementation are yet to bring results“). At the same time, EC points out to insufficient support to Anticorruption Agency and necessity to change the Law that regulates its work, for introducing accountability for organs that don't report to the Agency on its activities in implementing Anticorruption Strategy and resolving of other issues. Transparency – Serbia is convinced that problems in Strategy’s implementation that revealed several months after its adoption, are direct consequence of rejecting proposals that our organization presented before working group during the drafting process, i.e. to establish efficient accountability mechsanism for task fulfillment.
Observation of certain positive trends is related to implementation of Public Procurement Law, although necessity of creating new Strategy and strengthening capacity of the Public Procurement Office is underlined as well. There is progress identified in regards to certain provisions of new media laws. Improvement, although insufficient, is noticed with disciplinary accountability of judges and prosecutors.
On the other hand, certain areas have worst status in last 12 months. There as, European Commission notices „increase, of already high percentage of laws adopted in emergency procedure“, that 60% of servants in highest positions were appointed without job announcement during 2013, that percentage of proceedings on recommendations of Ombudsman, especially when it comes to implementing systemic measures, as well as unavailable report on awarded state aid to enterprises during 2013. What is now stated more clear than before is insufficient equipment of prosecution organs for implementing special investigative techniques, insufficient capacities for handling financial investigations and property seizing, need for inter-institutional coordination and larger independence of investigative and judiciary organs. Report mentions problems related to media work, like self-censorship and influences to editorial policy without intrusion into possible reasons and modalities for these phenomena.
That all shows that process of monitoring Serbia's progress towards EU will still be useful for building stronger anticorruption mechanisms, but that certain problems are beyond the scope of what EU, at least currently, monitors in that field. The experience of previous years well indicates for expenses in time and money that occurred due to neglecting voices from Serbia who advise on what should be conducted, until Brussels poses the same as an imperative. Therefore, in the best Serbian interest would be that the Government and media do not wait for the next report by counting whether it has more „pluses“ than „minuses“, but with an answer to the question why there are still unresolved issues that are repeated from year to year.
Transparency – Serbia
Belgrade, 10 October 2014
[1] http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/eu_dokumenta/godisnji_izvestaji_ek_o_napretku/serbia-progress-report14.pdf
[2] http://www.transparentnost.org.rs/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=821%3Akoordinator&catid=34%3Afacebook-naslovi&Itemid=27&lang=sr
