Stricter Laws Are Needed

In the three and a half years since conflicts of interest have become punishable offenses, the Committee for Resolving Conflicts of Interest has evaluated approximately 1,300 cases and handed down almost 400 private and 140 public decisions, also issuing a number of legal opinions.

At the same time, the group produced records covering 13,000 officials, also receiving 19,000 asset reports from elected and non- elected officials. In all, 15,500 of these reports have been checked for errors and omissions.

The law requires public officials at all levels of government to submit asset reports within 15 days of taking office. Officials are also required to abide by the law, act responsibly, and perform their duties in ways that reinforces public faith in government.

Commission member Sonja Beljanski says in her latest report on the body's activities that the law largely deals with defining conflicts of interest and laying down obligations that officials need to meet. She also points out that the law includes a number of exceptions that have been used to circumvent otherwise strict legal limits and give officials many undeserved benefits. The problem is that a multitude of institutions and officials are exempt, allowing people to hold multiple offices and face little, if any, punishment. In some situations, officials are not required to divulge information on all of their assets.

The Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest was the first systematic piece of Serbian legislation aimed at tackling corruption. Three years down the line, the time has come to identify and eliminate its main shortcomings. The Commission has already drawn up a proposal for doing precisely that. However, the Justice Ministry has said that the material could be included in a draft law on a national Anti- Corruption Agency. Although the bill was delivered to lawmakers last fall, elections held early this year and subsequent delays in the forming of a cabinet caused it to be withdrawn, together with about three dozen other bills.

Justice Ministry officials have said off the record that the corruption agency bill could soon be back in Parliament, since the Council of Europe, whose experts took part in drafting it, has given it a positive evaluation.

The working group tasked with the anti-corruption agency bill included Commission chair Milovan Dedijer. It was at this time that provisions defining public officials, banning a person from holding multiple offices, and other measures were introduced. However, Dedijer felt that setting up a special agency would not contribute to greater transparency when it came to property owned by officials and other related information.

Multiple Offices

The Commission for Resolving Conflicts of Interest believes that the definition of a public official needs to be expanded to include individuals appointed by state, provincial, and local government institutions. The prevailing opinion is that the concept should also encompass other people in senior positions, such as members of the Broadcasting Agency and the Director of the Police.

Another problem is that people who comply with Commission orders and reduce their offices to just one are not required to give back money derived from these additional offices.

Consequently, the Commission believes that the law should require such people to give back all revenues as this would to discourage people from accepting multiple appointments in the first place.

The latest Constitution also addresses this problem, stating that people elected to Parliament are barred from serving in the provincial assembly, any capacity in the executive or judicial branches, or any other capacity that could constitute a conflict of interest. Provisions to this effect must therefore be added to the Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest.

A Slap on the Wrist

Another problem that the Commission has experienced is that existing laws are very lax when it comes to enforcing its decisions. The Commission can do little but publicly require an official to withdraw from any job that could conflict with his public duties.

This extends to situations in which that person, for instance, is the general manager of a company or a member of its board. The Commission would like to have the power to initiate the dismissal of people who do not comply with its orders or commit other infractions. It also believes that private warnings should be made public.

Additionally, the Commission members are of the opinion that the public should have access to information on officials' assets and their earnings while in office, as opposed to just their state salaries. The rationale is that preventing corruption requires transparency.

Then there is the problem of insufficient staff, one result of which is that the Commission does not have the manpower to take action if mistakes are found in any of the approximately 13,000 asset reports.

Yet if these reports were public information, common citizens, non- government organizations, the media and other organizations could be expected to bring such cases to the attention of the authorities. This would have a preventive effect.

Commenting on the Anti-Corruption Agency bill, the Commission would prefer that agency to consist of two independent divisions. One would be a body tasked with addressing conflicts of interest, while the other would deal with political party and campaign financing. The reason for this is that these are two distinct tasks that require specialized approaches. The existing bill, however, envisions a single body.

Dealing with Conflicts of Interest

At present, the Commission for Resolving Conflicts of Interest can do one of two things when it encounters a conflict. It can serve an official with a private warning, or issue a public statement requesting his dismissal. This applies to elected officials, while appointed officials, in addition to private warnings, may receive a public call to resign.

Each of the two types of public measures are effective after publication in the Official Bulletin of the Republic of Serbia or other forms of public address. In cases of people who commit an infraction after leaving office, the Commission can make their illegal activities known by issuing a statement.

Private warnings are generally issued in cases where an official's public duties were not affected by a conflict of interest or if that official is late in complying with Commission orders. Each warning includes a deadline. Failure to comply results in a public recommendation for dismissal.

An official may also be recommended for dismissal if he is in legal or de facto control of a business, either private or state-owned, holds multiple offices, or does anything that could hinder his official duties.

The Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest requires the Commission to notify the public of any pressure or undue influence to which an official is exposed, as well as all positions in state-run and private companies held by him.

In doing its job, the Commission is required to ensure the confidentiality of all personal data, especially in cases where a conflict of interest is found not to exist.