Saopštenje za javnost

Izveštaj Evropske komisije o napretku Srbije kao podsticaj za primenu antikorupcijskih zakona

Organizacija Transparentnost – Srbija smatra da nam najnoviji izveštaj Evropske komisije o napretku Srbije jasno govori da neuvažavanje uloge antikorupcijskih institucija od strane izvršne vlasti i nesprovođenje državnih antikorupcijskih planova u našoj zemlji predstavlja problem ne samo za uspešniju borbu protiv korupcije već i za brži napredak ka EU. Pri tom treba imati u vidu da su zbog diplomatskog rečnika i ograničenog prostora, konstatacije u izveštajima EU ponekad veoma blage i ograničene na zakonski i institucionalni okvir, i da po našem uverenju ne uvažavaju u dovoljnoj meri raširenost korupcije u Srbiji.

Kao jedini uspesi na ovom polju se navode usvajanje zakona o Agenciji za borbu protiv korupcije (koji će početi da se primenjuje za više od godinu dana), ratifikovanje konvencija (na čijoj primeni nije ništa učinjeno do sada), podnošenje izveštaja GRECO i formiranje posebnih odeljenja koja se bave istragom korupcije u okviru tužilaštva i policije.

Izveštaj navodi da su „rezultati borbe protiv korupcije u praksi bili ograničeni“, pri čemu se eksplicitno kao razlozi navode: okolnost da većina partija nije dostavila potpune finansijske izveštaje , veliki broj funkcionera koji uprkos zakonskoj obavezi ne podnose izveštaje o imovini, odbijanje Republičke Vlade da obezbedi izvršenje rešenja Poverenika za informacije, slabosti akcionog plana za primenu antikorupcijske strategije i nedostatak sredstava za njegovu primenu, neodgovarajući uslovi za rad Državne revizorske institucije, Komisije za zaštitu prava, Uprave za javne nabavke, Ombudsmana, nedostatak kapaciteta istražnih organa.

Naročito nas zabrinjava činjenica da su na sve pobrojane probleme i moguća rešenja, ne samo u poslednjih godinu dana, već mnogo duže, ukazivali naša organizacija- kao i predstavnici nekih nezavisnih institucija. Da su ta ukazivanja u prošlosti iz Beograda bila više uvažavana, verovatno bi sada ocena iz Brisela bila drugačija.

Transparentnost – Srbija

Beograd, 6. novembar 2008.

Anti-corruption policy

There was some progress during the reporting period on fighting corruption and developing a fully comprehensive anti-corruption policy, which is a key priority of the European Partnership.

Amendments to the law on financing political parties, and the law establishing an anticorruption agency, which also contains new rules on conflict of interest, were adopted in October 2008. The Civil Law Convention on Corruption and the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption were ratified in November 2007. The compliance report was submitted to the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in December 2007.

Specialised departments within the prosecution offices have been set up at district level to

investigate corruption cases. A deputy prosecutor at national level has been given a coordination role on anti-corruption cases. The police directorate has specialised units dealing with corruption and financial investigations. Several high-profile corruption investigations are ongoing. Joint investigation teams of prosecutors and police have been set up.

However, practical results in fighting corruption have been limited. Under the previous law on financing political parties, enforcement procedures were weak. This resulted in most political parties not disclosing full details of their finances. Furthermore, the supervisory authority did not have sufficient capacity and expertise to assess the accuracy of the declarations provided.

More than one third of State officials did not declare their assets in 2008. The former law on conflict of interest did not provide for sufficient enforcement procedures and did not ensure an independent audit of the declarations submitted. Officials in certain areas, such as the judiciary, were not required to provide asset declarations. The Board for Resolution of Conflict of Interest has insufficient qualified staff and resources and does not have the powers to assess the validity of the information provided in the declarations.

The anti-corruption agency has not yet been established. This is of particular concern in view of the new role assigned to it under new legislation in the areas of conflict of interest and financing of political parties. Serbia has to ensure that the new agency will have a sufficient level of independence, capacities and competencies in order to effectively fulfil its tasks. The current role of the Anti-Corruption Council is limited to advising the government. The Law on free access to information contains loopholes, such as criteria for the classification of information, which hamper implementation. The action plan for the fight against corruption lacks clear deadlines, specific action and the necessary resources for implementation and therefore needs to be revised.

Public procurement and privatisation procedures along with major budgetary expenditure are not efficiently monitored by independent bodies. The State Audit Institution is not fully operational with only two auditors' posts filled, and currently cannot provide efficient auditing services. Other control bodies, such as the Commission for the Protection of Bidders in the area of public procurement, act only upon specific requests and conduct no general monitoring of the procedures for lack of appropriate powers and financial resources.

The capacities of the law enforcement bodies to investigate corruption cases are limited. At the same time, courts are bound by highly complex procedural rules imposing strict

conditions on the prosecution service. This results in a low rate of convictions in corruption cases.

Overall, corruption continues to be widespread and to pose a serious problem in Serbia .

Despite greater public awareness of the issue and newly adopted legislation, major problems remain. These include the lack of sufficiently independent and efficient oversight bodies in core areas such as party financing, conflict of interest, public procurement and privatisation.

These problems will have to be addressed in the context of implementation of the newly

adopted legislation.