{"id":6239,"date":"2015-07-29T11:27:41","date_gmt":"2015-07-29T11:27:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/?p=6239"},"modified":"2015-07-29T11:45:56","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T11:45:56","slug":"apr-2015-fight-against-corruption","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/apr-2015-fight-against-corruption\/","title":{"rendered":"APR 2015: Fight against corruption"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"10985305_788419814611626_4869364096270016049_n\"After a series of modifications and amendments, Public Procurement Law of BiH, came into\u00a0force in May 2014, but its implementation has been delayed by six months, until 28th November\u00a02014. The new law contains solutions that are in line with the SIGMA recommendations and\u00a0new EU Directives. However, according to the BH experts in this area, the law does not provide\u00a0the minimum standards for the successful prevention, education and sanctioning of the\u00a0irresponsible participants in public procurement in BiH, nor does it provide the transparency,\u00a0competitiveness, efficiency and rationality regarding the public spending of budgetary funds\u00a0in the public procurement process. The new legislation proposes significant fees for appealing,\u00a0which is an additional burden on bidders, due to the creation of administrative barriers and high\u00a0costs for the transparent procedures, and it further undermines the efforts to fight corruption\u00a0in public procurement. In addition, the fines for the responsible persons in contractual powers\u00a0are lower than the penalties provided by the previous Public Procurement Law of BiH, which\u00a0will certainly not raise the level of responsibility. Also, the establishment of new branches of\u00a0the Office in Banja Luka and Mostar was planned, but they still have not been established.<\/p>\n

After the prevention of the adverse amendments to the Freedom of Access to Information\u00a0Act for BiH (FAIA) in 2013, the BiH Council of Ministers has ordered the appointment of a new\u00a0working group with the aim of creating amendments to the FAIA, in line with the initiative of\u00a0the Personal Data Protection Agency in BiH. Although invited to take part in the new working\u00a0group, the office of Human Rights Ombudsman of BiH have excluded themselves from its\u00a0operation, since they believe that there is a legal inconsistency due to the fact that the previous\u00a0working group has never formally stopped working. Currently there are no activities in the\u00a0direction of making the amendments to the FAIA; however, we can expect new proposals.\u00a0Meanwhile, the laws at the entity level are not harmonized with the law at the state level,\u00a0in regards to the sanctions for the violations of the law; thus, at this point, we have the legal\u00a0framework which is not harmonized at state and entity levels, which is unacceptable.<\/p>\n

The existing Law on Financing of Political Parties in BiH, including the amendments to the law\u00a0from 2012, points out the lack of will of the legislative authorities in BiH to establish control over\u00a0the expenditures of the political parties, whose main sources of income are public subsidies at\u00a0all governmental levels in BiH. The Central Election Commission BiH has no clear authority for\u00a0the audit of expenditures, and focuses mainly on income. The sanctions for the violations of the\u00a0law had not been amended, i.e. for the potential gains obtained through its use. In addition, the\u00a0amounts of the voluntary contributions of legal and natural persons have significantly increased,\u00a0and the sources of financing of the political parties have further expanded (the publishing, credits\u00a0with commercial banks). Apart from that, in line with the new Book of Rules on Pre-Election and\u00a0Post-Election Financial Reports of the Political Subjects, the parties are no longer required to\u00a0include the ID numbers of people and companies who finance them, so all the legal obstacles for\u00a0the publishing of the sources of income (i.e. the protection of personal data) have been removed.\u00a0However, it remains to be seen whether CEC will publish these reports in its entirety.<\/p>\n

The Law on Conflict of Interest, adopted in 2013, has significantly eroded the legal framework\u00a0in this area – the responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the law, held previously\u00a0by the Central Election Commission, was transferred to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary\u00a0committee the members of which are selected from the members of the Parliamentary Assembly.\u00a0Such a solution does not provide even the minimal grounds for a transparent and responsible\u00a0approach in deciding on the potential conflict of interest of the party colleagues of the committee\u00a0members. In addition, the proposed penalties for the proven conflict of interest are significantly\u00a0reduced, which further weakens the mechanisms for the prevention of conflicts of interest. The\u00a0issue of transfer of departments which worked on issues of conflict of interest from the Central\u00a0Election Commission to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the\u00a0Fight against Corruption in BiH (APIK) still has not been resolved. The issue of systematization\u00a0and the budget is still controversial, and there are still no satisfactory solutions for the both sides,\u00a0which allowed that the appointment of staff after the 2014 General Elections passes without the\u00a0required verification of a potential conflict of interest of the proposed candidates.<\/p>\n

Following the adoption of the Law on Protection of Persons Reporting Corruption in\u00a0the Institutions of BiH, in December 2013, the jurisdiction over the implementation of the law
\nwas given to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against\u00a0Corruption in BiH (APIK). In the last year, APIK has received 7 requests for granting the status\u00a0of \u201cwhistle-blower\u201d, 2 of which were granted. However, the laws at the entity levels still have\u00a0not been adopted and due to the administrative structure of BiH, APIK is responsible only for\u00a0the state level of government. This legal void may lead to the situation that more than one\u00a0institution will be working on the implementation of the law or that no one will be working on\u00a0it, thus leaving the \u201cwhistle-blowers\u201d without the adequate support.<\/p>\n

Before the end of the term of the Strategy for Fight Against Corruption in BiH 2009 – 2014,
\nAPIK has started working on the new Strategy for Fight Against Corruption in BiH for the period\u00a02015-2019, and on the accompanying Action Plan. The text of the Strategy itself has been\u00a0prepared by the team of international experts in collaboration with the APIK representatives.\u00a0Another novelty is that, during the work on the Strategy, a working group was formed, made\u00a0up by a large number of representatives of the institutions, the judicial system, civil society,\u00a0and the media, which allows a wide range of consultations, and a better quality of the strategic plan. The prepared Action Plan contains realistic and measurable indicators which can be traced\u00a0during the monitoring of the implementation of the strategic goals. The prepared documents\u00a0have been forwarded to the BiH Council of Ministers for adoption in December 2014. Due to\u00a0the fact that the new composition of the BiH Council of Ministers has not been appointed by\u00a0March 2015, the Strategy and the Action Plan have been placed on the agenda of a session only in May 2015, when they were adopted as well, without any amendments. We are still waiting\u00a0for the formal start of the activities as proposed in these documents.<\/p>\n

In the Federation of BiH, at the very end of the mandate of the previous federal Government,\u00a0the Confiscation of Assets Law in the FBiH was adopted, and it should have come into force\u00a0in March 2015, but its implementation was postponed, because the Agency for custody,\u00a0management and disposition of forfeited assets acquired through criminal offences has not\u00a0been formed, and it is responsible for the enforcement of the law.8 Considering the crisis of\u00a0the authorities which occurred less than two months following the formation of the FBiH\u00a0Government, the implementation of the law is still uncertain.<\/p>\n

Recommendations:
\n\u2022 Identify large and complex cases\u00a0of corruption (especially in the\u00a0framework of public procurement,\u00a0privatization and major infrastructure\u00a0works) which should be a priority\u00a0solved before judicial institutions;
\n\u2022 Conduct a comprehensive analysis\u00a0of the situation in the judiciary\u00a0and law enforcement agencies,\u00a0which would serve as the basis for\u00a0further dialogue and as a basis for\u00a0measuring progress;
\n\u2022 Strengthen mechanisms and\u00a0independence of internal controls\u00a0within the Office of Disciplinary\u00a0Prosecutor of HJPC and within the\u00a0law enforcement agencies, as well\u00a0as strengthen human and material\u00a0resources in the department for\u00a0organized crime and corruption\u00a0within the Prosecution;
\n\u2022 Introduce the practice of filing\u00a0assets declarations for all elected\u00a0officials, the judiciary and the\u00a0leaders among law enforcement\u00a0agencies, and their veracity should\u00a0be subject to verification.<\/p>\n

This article\u00a0is part of Alternative Progress Report BiH 2015: Political Criteria<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After a series of modifications and amendments, Public Procurement Law of BiH, came into\u00a0force in May 2014, but its implementation has been delayed by six months, until 28th November\u00a02014. The new law contains solutions that are in line with the SIGMA recommendations and\u00a0new EU Directives. However, according to the BH experts in this area, the … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6236,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[765],"tags":[],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/site\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/10985305_788419814611626_4869364096270016049_n.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6239"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6239"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6239\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6239"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6239"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eu-monitoring.ba\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6239"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}