Annual reports of independent bodies – first test for the Parliament
Transparency Serbia (official chapter of Transparency International) expresses concern on how will the new sitting of National Assembly fulfill its numerous important tasks from anti-corruption area, having in mind outcomes of first sittings where debated on reports of independent organs – lack of quorum and adoption of general conclusions.
E. g. Committee for Judiciary, due to lack of quorum on Thursday, hasn’t debated on annual reports of Anticorruption Agency, Ombudsman and Commissioner for Information of Public Importance. Consideration of these reports, adoption of conclusions on how to resolve most important problems indicated by these organs, and further monitoring of undertaken steps on those conclusions is just one of many tasks before Committees and Parliamentary plenum. It will be necessary to show much more “political will” and active engagement, than mere presence in one sitting, to fulfill tasks Parliament itself established by Anticorruption Strategy.
No less reasons for concern are outcomes of sitting of Committee for Finances, Republic Budget and Control of Public Assets Spending, that disposed with quorum for deciding. Draft conclusion states general support to work of Anti-corruption Agency, but without stating recommendations for resolving of problems indicated by the Agency. Anticorruption Agency in annual report recommended, among other, extremely important changes of the Law for increasing efficiency of Agency’s work, introducing stricter rules on accountability of public officials, more severe punishment for violation of rules on political activities’ financing, introducing misdemeanor responsibility of institution directors for failing to adopt integrity plans and obligatory corruption risk analysis when adopting regulations.
We remind that some of these recommendations (like changes of the Anti-corruption Agency Law) were part of the conclusions that Parliament adopted last year to preposition of Judiciary Committee. Therefore it is necessary to consider which obligations that were stated in conclusion are implemented and determine accountability for their noncompliance. This mechanism of monitoring recommendations implementation is anticipated by Anti-corruption Strategy.
First report on implementing Anticorruption Strategy was submitted alongside the Agency’s report. It is obvious even now that there are huge problems with violation of determined deadlines, insufficient resources in institutions’ disposal and inaccurate presentation of data on fulfilling obligation from Action Plan, by appropriate organs.
Belgrade, 30th of May 2014
